I should start with an apology to Geeta Koska of One Pump Court, who sent me this judgment a year ago. The delay is entirely my fault.

Zikic v London Borough of Haringey. Central London County Court. 9 December 2024. (Copy of Judgment).

This was a s.204 appeal of Haringey’s decision on review that Mr Zikic was not homeless because it was reasonable to remain in his then accommodation, a private assured shorthold tenancy of a one bed flat. The flat, notably, could only be accessed by a flight of 15 steps.

Mr Z is disabled.

He suffers from gallstones, functional neurological disorder, Hashimoto’s disease, chronic fatigue, glaucoma, short term memory loss, fatty liver, renal calculus, bilateral L5 & right L3 possible nerve root compression, mobility and pain symptoms, and depression.

Mr Z maintained he could not manage the steps to the property. Haringey’s adult social care department supported this. An Occupation Therapist assessment had recorded

“Mr Zikic has difficulties accessing stairs is living in a first floor privately rented flat family physically assist Mr Zikic to access stairs which increases risk of falls for Mr Zikic and assisting family members. Property does not of lift access, Mr Zikic due to recent fall outdoors is anxious of accessing stairs and going outdoors. Mr Zikic would benefit from moving into a property on ground floor or property with lift access to enable him safely access community with or without support of family.”

The OT’s housing recommendation was “Two-bedroom flat or house level access at front/back where applicable or lift access if not ground floor.”

Mr Z had applied as homeless. Haringey decided he was not homeless. Mr Z requested a s.202 review.

The review officer had the Haringey OT report, medical reports from four consultants, noting his chronic fatigue syndrome, dizzy spells and fear of falling.

The review officer also had a report requested by Haringey from Now Medical, by a Dr Giovanna Hornibrook, a GP, which said

“He does not require the use of any permanent walking aids to mobilise and whilst I acknowledge his symptoms of fatigue, there is nothing specifically to preclude the use of some stairs.”

Dr John Keen, another GP, of Now Medical added “I think the current accommodation is suitable if not ideal on medical grounds. Medical priority doesn’t apply.”

The review officer upheld the decision that it was reasonable for Mr Z to remain in the current accommodation.

Mr Z appealed, arguing

The Respondent failed to have regard to the Appellant’s circumstances as a whole in assessing whether it was reasonable for him to continue to occupy the accommodation/failed to take into account relevant considerations

The Respondent failed to apply the public sector equality duty Equality Act 2010, s.149; and

The Respondent failed to comply with its duty under s.11 Children Act 2004 and failed to discharge its functions having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the Appellant’s child.

HHJ Holmes held

i) The review officer’s treatment of the OT assessment and report was flawed. The review officer had taken the position that none of the medical reports suggested that the stairs were an insuperable difficulty.

There is a fundamental error in approach adopted by the review officer. The best evidence as to the suitability of the property for Mr Zikic comes from the occupational therapist whose specialism it is to look at adaptations and suitability. His conclusions are clear and they are not dealt with adequately in the review decision. He was not the Appellant’s expert, but rather someone who’s opinion was obtained by Haringey itself. Too much weight is placed upon letters from various treating clinicians, some of whom are simply not considering mobility at all; others are not answering a question as to the ability to negotiate 15 stairs to the flat. It is guesswork to suggest what they would have said about the issue had they been asked.

The Now Medical/Hornibrook advice was made without information from the OT, and was therefore “of no real significance”. Too much weight was give to the advice of Dr Keen.

Dr Keen does not explain why the Strengths Based Assessment is wrong. Dr Keen had not met Mr Zikic and had not been to the property, Mr Francis had. Dr Keen is a general practitioner, whereas Mr Francis, as an occupational therapist, specialises in making the exact type of assessment required in this case: whether Mr Zikic safely use the stairs. There is a wholesale failure in the review decision to acknowledge the difference in expertise.

The review decision also did not address the position of Mr Z’s wife and son and the risk to them in assisting Mr Z with the stairs that the OT had identified.

These failures amounted to an error of law and the decision must be quashed.

On the Public Sector Equality duty, the review decision did not substantially engage with Mr K’s disability and its consequences.

It will be obvious from my observations that in my judgment the review decision fails to engage in a number of important issues and does not adequately assess Mr Zikic’s needs under the PSED.

The consideration was superficial. There had been a failure to make further reasonable enquiries, including from Mr Z’s GP.

On the Children Act 2004 ground, the duty to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of children should be considered by the LA in making Part VII decisions, identifying the needs of the children. While section 11 Children Act 2004 may not be a paramount or primary consideration in Part VII decisions, it does need to be considered.

There was no consideration of the evidence as to the impact and risk to Mr Z’s son in assisting him, as set out in the OT’s assessment, or engagement with the son’s safety.

The appeal was allowed on all three grounds. The decision was quashed and would have to be re-made.