Zahra Fatolahzadeh v London Borough of Barnet

Hearing date: 1 July 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on Thursday 18 September 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Introduction

On 26 September 2022 the respondent [“Barnet”] accepted that it owed the appellant a prevention duty pursuant to section 195(2) of the Housing Act 1996 [“the Act”]. On 17 March 2023 Barnet offered the appellant a two-bedroom flat at 124 Kenilworth Road in Edgware [“the Property”], which it considered suitable for her needs. The appellant accepted that offer but requested that the Respondent review the suitability of the Property pursuant to section 202 of the Act. On 4 August 2023, Barnet gave its decision on the requested review [“the Review decision”], which was that the Property was suitable.

The appellant brought an appeal to the Central London County Court pursuant to section 204 of the Act challenging the Review decision. That appeal came before HHJ Hellman [“the Judge”] on 30 April 2024 and led to a judgment dated 29 July 2024 [“the Judgment”] and an order dismissing the appellant's appeal, dated 17 October 2024.

The appellant now brings a second appeal to this court advancing two grounds, namely:

i) Ground 1 is that “the Judge erred in law in finding that, where a local housing authority fails to discharge the duty to assess an applicant's housing needs pursuant to section 189A(2) of the Act, such breach does not invalidate a purported discharge of duty through offering accommodation because of their assessment of suitability. In error the Judge concluded [that Barnet's] review of the property's suitability on review superseded the assessment duty”;

ii) Ground 2 is that “further or in the alternative, the Judge erred [in] concluding [that] the personal housing plan prepared in the absence of any discharge of the assessment duty, lack of reasoning and in the absence of any review, was immaterial since the reviewing officer could find the property was suitable”.

As will appear, Ground 1 does not accurately reflect the issues that arise in this case. I would dismiss the appeal on both grounds for reasons that I shall explain. First, and although the appeal is primarily concerned with questions of principle, it is necessary to outline some of the facts in rather greater detail. The summary is taken largely from the Judgment.

The factual background

The appellant approached Barnet in July 2022 because she had been issued a notice seeking possession of the property in which she was then living with her adult son. The case was assigned to a tenancy sustainment officer to explore ways to prevent the loss of accommodation. On 12 September 2022 the appellant and her son completed medical self-assessment forms in which each outlined their significant health issues and consequential difficulties. On the same day they each completed affordability assessment forms.

On 21 September 2022, a housing worker employed by Barnet conducted a telephone interview about the appellant and her son's circumstances and needs, the details of which were recorded by Barnet in its “Jigsaw notes”. The officer recorded details of the appellant's reason for making a homelessness approach. Their present accommodation (a two-bedroom first floor flat with access via stairs and a lift), special educational needs for her son, the appellant's diagnosed conditions, the location of her appointments and her son's medical and disability information were also recorded. The notes recorded that the appellant had a support network where they currently lived. The following day, the appellant and her son were provided with a copy of that record of interview.

In the light of that interview, Barnet prepared a document that described itself as a personal housing plan [“PHP”]. It recorded that the appellant had attended on Barnet and that “a personal assessment of your current housing circumstances was undertaken” by the housing worker which took into account the circumstances causing her homelessness, the housing needs of the appellant and her household, the type of accommodation her household requires, and any support needs that she and her household needed in order to secure and retain accommodation. It recorded the appellant's wish to have assistance with long term temporary accommodation; and it set out various action types with target dates to be achieved. It also recorded information that had been provided, such as the self-assessment medical and special needs forms and supporting medical information from the appellant's GP or consultant. It stated that it was to be reviewed by Barnet and the appellant at 9.15 am on 21 October 2022.

On 26 September 2022, both the appellant and her son signed post-interview declaration forms, as had been requested by Barnet. On the same day the housing worker contacted Barnet's Housing Medical Team and asked them to assess for vulnerability, future housing and banding recommendations.

Also on 26 September 2022, Barnet wrote to the appellant accepting a duty pursuant to section 195(2) of the Act to help prevent her from becoming homeless. It referred to her PHP being either attached or to be sent shortly, and said that it contained Barnet's assessment of her housing circumstances, housing need and any support needs. The letter informed the appellant of her right to request a review pursuant to section 202(1)(bc)(i) of any decision of the authority as to the steps the authority were to take. No review was requested.

On 13 October 2022, Barnet's Housing Medical Team forwarded to the housing worker a response to her request for a medical assessment. The response was compiled by a doctor and was in the following terms:

“Housing needs

First floor max. or lifted

Shower with seat

Nil else specific

…

Given [the son's disability] I'd consider him vulnerable if homeless.

I make no other housing recommendation.”

This recommendation was added to the Jigsaw notes on 4 December 2022 and was repeated in a further entry in the notes on 17 March 2023.

Meanwhile, on 28 October 2022 the appellant was assessed by Barnet as falling into Band 3 under its allocation scheme. However, the Barnet's officer recommended that she be treated as falling into Band 2 (the second highest priority band) because of advice from Barnet's medical team. Accordingly, on 5 December 2022, Barnet sent a “banding” letter to the appellant setting out that she had been placed into band 2 as from 28 October 2022 and that Barnet would now start looking for suitable properties for her. The letter stated that a property would be suitable for her if it met criteria including (a) no more than two bedrooms and (b) compliance with the medical recommendations that the accommodation should be first floor maximum or lifted and a shower with a seat. She was asked to contact Barnet if she did not agree with these criteria.

The appellant was unhappy with the banding allocation and raised this with Barnet, complaining that her existing flat was uninhabitable. On 6 January 2023 Barnet wrote, having completed its enquiries into her application. It rejected the appellant's concerns and concluded that there should be no change in the appellant's banding for reasons set out in its letter.

On 6 February 2023 Barnet offered the appellant housing at an address in Avondale Avenue, London N12. After viewing the accommodation with her Social Prescribing Link Worker the appellant said that she did not think it suitable. Having discussed it internally, on 13 February 2023 Barnet accepted and acted on the advice of the Social Prescribing Link Worker that the accommodation was unsuitable and withdrew the offer for that accommodation.

By a letter dated 17 March 2023, Barnet then offered the Property to the appellant by a letter that described itself as a final Part 6 Offer of suitable accommodation. In what was plainly an implicit reference to section 195(5) and (8) of the Act, the letter said that acceptance of the offer would end the housing duty that Barnet owed to the appellant. The letter described the Property as a two-bedroom flat on the ground floor and said that a level access shower would be installed to meet the appellant's medical needs. The letter stated that Barnet considered the Property to be suitable and reasonable for her, and therefore reasonable for her to accept.

The appellant accepted Barnet's offer and moved in when the Property was ready for occupation. However, as she was entitled to do, she requested Barnet to carry out a review of the suitability of the Property. Barnet acknowledged that request for a review of the Property's suitability by a letter dated 24 March 2023, which informed her of her opportunity to submit further representations with regard to the review. The appellant took advantage of that opportunity by a letter from her solicitors on 21 April 2023 which stated that the Property was not suitable for two reasons. First, it was too far from the appellant's and her son's support network. The appellant currently lived in Hendon close to Finchley. Her GP, social prescriber, close friend, community and church were all located on the other side of Barnet. It was not reasonable to expect the appellant, who suffered from several physical and mental health conditions,...