Mohamed v LB Hounslow. Central London County Court. 28 April 2025 (Unreported. A copy of the judgment is here.)

Our thanks to Will Ford of Osbornes Law and counsel Daniel Clarke for letting us know about this section 204 appeal of a review of suitability of section 193 accommodation.

Ms M had applied to Hounslow as homeless. Her household included her 4 children, 3 adult children and Z, 13 years old.

Z is diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Severe Learning Difficulties, Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and a generalised seizure disorder. He has severe challenging behaviour and is non-verbal. Ms M is his full time carer.

Following a compromised judicial review on failure to provide a Personal Housing Plan and unsuitability of s.188 accommodation, Hounslow accepted the full housing duty.

An Occupational Therapist for Ms M assessed the household’s housing need as

i) A property with five bedrooms, with Z having his own bedroom, or in the alternative a four-bedroom property with a separate lounge that can accommodate a bed.
ii) Ground floor flat or bungalow due to the risk of Z exiting the property through a window.
iii) Hard flooring due to Z’s issues with spillages and continence.
iv) Garden provision.
v) Window restrictors and locks with keys to reduce the risk of Z absconding.
vi) Parking facility nearby to reduce the risk of Z absconding.
vii) Property without dampness or infestation.

Hounslow’s revised PHP assessed the need as

“4-bedrooms, as Z requires his own bedroom; at least two toilets (as Z requires his own toilet); nearby parking; windows to have restrictors for safety; a garden; a ground floor property.”

Hounslow offered Ms M a property in the private sector as temporary accommodation. On the ground floor, there are two bedrooms and a toilet, shower and wet room. On the first floor, there is a living room and a kitchen. On the second floor, there are two bedrooms, including the largest bedroom, and a shower room.

Ms M accepted subject to a review of suitability.

The Occupational Therapist attended the property and prepared a further report on need and the current accommodation which was submitted as part of the suitability review. The OT found

that the stairs are a significant risk for Z’s safety and he is at risk of injuring himself and others in the context of a number of Accommodation related matters. She reports that the Accommodation is more dangerous than previous properties occupied by the family and that a move is urgently required to minimise the risk of deterioration in Z’s condition and behaviour. She reports a downturn in Z’s behaviour since moving to the Accommodation.

Ms M also raised considerable risks in the property for Z:

i) His behaviour is exuberant and difficult to monitor and control. He is a danger to himself and others.
ii) He obsessively runs up and down the stairs and jumps from them in this three-storey town house. He has had falls. He is prone to absconding through doors (which he is able to unlock) and unrestricted windows (the Accommodation being close to main roads) which poses a high chance of his jumping out of windows on the upper floors.
iii) He gathers and throws gravel from the rear garden over the fences and at people and puts it in his mouth.
iv) If he is in the living room area on the first floor he will “escape” into the kitchen area to play with equipment and utensils if left unguarded.
v) He is at risk of putting rodent faeces in his mouth and there is concern that he would do the same with rodent poison put down if not carefully hidden. When he discovered a dead rat at the Accommodation his curiosity led to his handling of it.
vi) He experiences episodes of urinary incontinence.
vii) Although he shares the largest bedroom on the second floor with the Appellant, he does not always sleep through the night leaving him exposed to the risks that the Accommodation presents – such as the stairs and windows. Using a smaller, ground floor bedroom would increase the risk of absconding.

Hounslow’s review decision was that the property was suitable, on the basis that Z had to be supervised at all times anyway, and would have to be whatever the property, and that adaptations could be made to the stairs and windows, and the gravel garden could have play mats put down or be grassed over by the landlord.

Ms M appealed arguing

i) that in five specified respects the review officer’s decision was based on potential improvements or adjustments to the Accommodation that were not “certain, binding and enforceable” at the time of the review and reflect little more than optimistic ambitions and so the decision was irrational.

ii) The decision was irrational in the context of the occupational therapist’s report and the dangers and risks the Accommodation poses to Z and by extension others particularly with regard to the staircase and the risk of absconding.

iii) The decision was irrational with regard to the Children Act 2004 and the Public Sector Equality Duty.

The Circuit Judge noted, following Boreh v Ealing (2008) EWCA Civ 1176, that while a suitability review could take into account prospective alterations and adaptations

In this instance, the review decision had not properly considered whether adaptations were ‘certain binding and enforceable’. Indeed the decision was vague about what adapations could be made with regard to the stairs, and this part of the decision was flawed for three reasons.

The first is that the occupational therapist concludes that there is a significant risk to Z’s safety and well-being with the stairs (including jumping from upper floors or falling) notwithstanding the care and supervision regime in place. It is more dangerous than previous properties. No account has been taken of Z’s night wanderings. The enhanced supervision provided by the Appellant (and intermittently others) does not counteract the risks posed by the stairs. Z is 13 years old, not 13 months.

The second is that any adaptations or alterations (such as they may be) are not subject to “certain, binding and enforceable” proposals (Boreh). Indeed, there are no specific proposals at all for the stairs.

Thirdly, the review officer has not (by reason of the above) had any or any sufficient regard to safeguarding or promoting the welfare and best interests of Z applying the focus demanded in the context of this Accommodation and this child despite the section in the review.

Similarly, the suggestion that restrictors could be fitted to windows had been discussed under ‘disrepair’ and there was no apparent reason why the landlord would or should fit restrictors to ground level windows (or the other floors).

With regard to the garden

The somewhat “breezy” reliance on playmats says nothing about what products might be available or at what, or who’s cost. Asking the landlord (whoever that may be) to grass over the garden is, in my judgment, clearly a thoughtless and unrealistic idea. A gravelled garden in not “Disrepair”.  

The rodent infestation was a particular issue for this family and this property, in ways that would make eradicating the infestation impossible, which the review officer had failed to take into account.

The accommodation could not be regarded as ‘suitable in the short term’ given the OT’s finding of specific and immediate risks.

In all of this the review officer had failed to have due regard to the Children Act 2004 duty to

Well quite!