Landlord and tenant – Local authority – Section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 – Respondent local authority providing accommodation for appellant and wife successfully claiming asylum – Respondent offering alternative accommodation on 16th floor of tower block – Wife suffering long-standing fear of heights – Wife having panic attack and taken to hospital – Respondent deciding appellant having refused offer of suitable accommodation and duty to provide accommodation ended – Whether respondent making unlawful decision – Appeal allowed The appellant and his wife came to the UK from Lebanon in 1997 and successfully claimed asylum. They were granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK in 2006 and had since been granted British citizenship. They were provided with accommodation by the respondent local authority, pursuant to their duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996, in the form of a two-bedroomed flat on the ninth floor of a tower block. It was not obvious when looking out of the windows of the windows just how high the flat was and there was no direct view of the street below. The appellant subsequently completed a medical assessment form which indicated that the housing provided had affected the disability or ill health of a member of his family, i.e. his wife, who suffered from depression, fear of heights and dizziness which was affected by the height of the flat they had been allocated. The appellant applied for a transfer, indicating that his housing preference would be for a flat on the ground or first floor. He was then offered alternative accommodation which was a flat was on the 16th floor of a block of flats. The window sills of the property were three feet above floor level and the view out of the window showed the street below. When she visited the property, the wife had a panic attack and was taken to hospital. Consequently, the appellant refused to accept the alternative accommodation on the basis that it was unsuitable. The respondents took the view that the property was suitable and that, as he had refused the offer, their duty to him under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 had ended. Despite a doctor’s letter certifying that the wife suffered from severe vertigo and fear of heights and advising that she should be offered alternative accommodation on a lower floor to avoid any further health problems in the form of panic attacks and anxiety, the respondents upheld that decision. The review officer said that, on the evidence before her, she was not satisfied that the wife would have been prevented from living on the 16th floor due to her fear of heights. The county court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against that decision. The appellant appealed contending, inter alia, that, in light of the medical evidence before her, the review officer’s conclusion was irrational. Held: The appeal was allowed. In the present case, the review officer’s central conclusion was that it was reasonable for her to conclude that the wife would have settled in the property “with time”. That conclusion failed to give proper weight to the medical evidence. It could not reasonably have been disputed that the wife had a panic attack which caused her to collapse during her visit to the flat and was taken to hospital. There was a medical opinion that, due to the severity of her symptoms, she should have been be offered alternative accommodation on a lower floor to avoid any further health problems in the form of panic attacks and anxiety. There was no countervailing evidence from a medical expert to refute it and the review officer was not entitled to disregard it. The history of the family invited only one conclusion. The finding that the 16th floor flat was suitable was outwith the band of decisions available to the review officer and was thus, in the legal sense, perverse. If the review officer doubted the reliability or veracity of the wife, she needed to arrange for a further medical opinion to be obtained. Paul Skinner (instructed by Anthony Gold Solicitors) appeared for the appellant; Ian Peacock (instructed by Westminster City Council Litigation Department) appeared for the respondents. Eileen O’Grady, barrister
Landlord and tenant – Local authority – Section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 – Respondent local authority providing accommodation for appellant and wife successfully claiming asylum – Respondent offering alternative accommodation on 16th floor of tower block – Wife suffering long-standing fear of heights – Wife having panic attack and taken to hospital – Respondent deciding appellant having refused offer of suitable accommodation and duty to provide accommodation ended – Whether respondent making unlawful decision – Appeal allowed The appellant and his wife came to the UK from Lebanon in 1997 and successfully claimed asylum. They were granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK in 2006 and had since been granted British citizenship. They were provided with accommodation by the respondent local authority, pursuant to their duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996, in the form of a two-bedroomed flat on the ninth floor of a tower block. It was not obvious when looking out of the windows of the windows just how high the flat was and there was no direct view of the street below. The appellant subsequently completed a medical assessment form which indicated that the housing provided had affected the disability or ill health of a member of his family, i.e. his wife, who suffered from depression, fear of heights and dizziness which was affected by the height of the flat they had been allocated. The appellant applied for a transfer, indicating that his housing preference would be for a flat on the ground or first floor. He was then offered alternative accommodation which was a flat was on the 16th floor of a block of flats. The window sills of the property were three feet above floor level and the view out of the window showed the street below. When she visited the property, the wife had a panic attack and was taken to hospital. Consequently, the appellant refused to accept the alternative accommodation on the basis that it was unsuitable. The respondents took the view that the property was suitable and that, as he had refused the offer, their duty to him under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 had ended. Despite a doctor’s letter certifying that the wife suffered from severe vertigo and fear of heights and advising that she should be offered alternative accommodation on a lower floor to avoid any further health problems in the form of panic attacks and anxiety, the respondents upheld that decision. The review officer said that, on the evidence before her, she was not satisfied that the wife would have been prevented from living on the 16th floor due to her fear of heights. The county court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against that decision. The appellant appealed contending, inter alia, that, in light of the medical evidence before her, the review officer’s conclusion was irrational. Held: The appeal was allowed. It was for the council to judge what inquiries were necessary, and it was susceptible to a successful challenge on a point of law if and only if a judge in the county court considered that no reasonable council could have failed to regard as necessary the further inquiries suggested by the appellants’ advisers. A benevolent approach should be adopted to the interpretation of review decisions. The court should not take too technical view of the language used, or search for inconsistencies, or adopt a nit-picking approach, when confronted with an appeal against a review decision. However, that was not to say that the court should approve incomprehensible or misguided reasoning, but it should be realistic and practical in its approach to the interpretation of review decisions: Cramp v Hastings Borough Council [2005] HLR 48 applied; Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council [2009] UKHL 7, [2009] 1 WLR 413 considered. In the present case, the review officer’s central conclusion was that it was reasonable for her to conclude that the wife would have settled in the property “with time”. That conclusion failed to give proper weight to the medical evidence. It could not reasonably have been disputed that the wife had a panic attack which caused her to collapse during her visit to the flat and was taken to hospital. There was a medical opinion that, due to the severity of her symptoms, she should have been be offered alternative accommodation on a lower floor to avoid any further health problems in the form of panic attacks and anxiety. There was no countervailing evidence from a medical expert to refute it and the review officer was not entitled to disregard it. The history of the family invited only one conclusion. The finding that the 16th floor flat was suitable was outwith the band of decisions available to the review officer and was thus, in the legal sense, perverse. If the review officer doubted the reliability or veracity of the wife, she needed to arrange for a further medical opinion to be obtained. Paul Skinner (instructed by Anthony Gold Solicitors) appeared for the appellant; Ian Peacock (instructed by Westminster City Council Litigation Department) appeared for the respondents. Eileen O’Grady, barrister