Sims, R (On the Application Of) v The London Borough of Hackney (Rev1) (2025) EWHC 2271 (Admin)

This was a renewed permission hearing on an application for judicial review. Mr Sims is the secure tenant of Hackney, in a flat on the second floor of a block, with communal stairs and a lift. Mr S has medical conditions affecting his mobility such that he can only use the lift.

On 27 March 2025 the lift broke down and it was shut down on 28 March 2025. On 31 March 2025 the Claimant’s solicitor requested that the Defendant provide him with alternative temporary accommodation until the lift was fixed. On 3 April 2025, the Defendant offered to provide the Claimant with accommodation in a hotel. The Claimant has dogs and, although the Defendant had arranged with the hotel that the Claimant could bring his dogs with him, the Claimant would not be able to leave them at the hotel unattended. The Defendant declined to pay for a dog walker. There is medical evidence that indicates that the dogs are a protective factor in managing his mental health difficulties.
Following pre-action correspondence, the Claim was issued on 22 April 2025.

The lift was put back in service on 24 April 2025. An application for interim relief was stayed for that reason.

A separate claim for disrepair was subsequently issued in the County Court.

The claim alleged

i) Hackney did not follow its “Lift breakdown protocol housing procedure”.
ii) Hackney had unlawfully failed to publish that policy and its “temporary decant procedure”.
iii) The lift breakdown policy does not provide for an assessment of a disabled person’s housing needs when determining the suitability of decant accommodation, in breach of the Public Sector Equality duty
iv) Hackney unlawfully failed to consider exercising its power under s 19(3) of the Care Act 2014.
v) Hackney discriminated against the Claimant contrary to s 15 of the 2010 Act (discrimination arising from disability), in that it has denied the Claimant the opportunity to have his dogs with him in alternative accommodation.
vi) There was indirect discrimination by Hackney.

Hackney argued that the claim was academic, as the lift was working, the policies had since been published and Mr S had been assessed under the Care Act.

Mr S accepted that ii) and iv) were now academic, but argued that i) and iii) were not academic and also that v) and vi) passed the threshold for permission.

The High Court held:

Grounds i) and iii) were academic.There were no exceptional circumstances, and no wider application to similar cases, which would in any event turn on their specific facts in consideration of the policy.

Permission refused.

Grounds v) and vi) would be more appropriately considered in a County Court claim, where evidence could be heard, disputed facts decided and damages assessed. The claim under the Equality Act 2010 was transferred to the County Court.

No order as to costs, save for the costs of the Equality Act claim which were reserved to the County Court.