Fatolahzadeh v Barnet London Borough Council

Subject Matter

HOUSING — Homeless persons — Housing needs assessment — Claimant approaching local housing authority for housing assistance — Housing authority conducting assessment and accepting duty to help prevent claimant from becoming homeless — Claimant accepting offer of property from authority but requesting review of suitability — Review decision confirming suitability of property — Claimant appealing against review decision in reliance on alleged failure to carry out housing needs assessment — Judge rejecting contention that no assessment carried out — Judge dismissing appeal finding deficiencies in underlying review decision corrected on review — Whether claimant permitted to rely on underlying deficiency corrected on review when appealing against review decision — Housing Act 1996 (c 52), ss 189A, 202, 204

[2025] EWCA Civ 1174; [2025] WLR(D) 472, CA

AI Summary & Issues

Content generated by AI, as supplied by Jurisage. Learn more about AI Case Summaries.

In *Fatolahzadeh v LB Barnet*, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against the County Court's ruling, which upheld Barnet's assessment that a two-bedroom flat met her needs. The court determined that Barnet's housing needs assessment was adequate, despite minor reasoning deficiencies. The review decision addressed these issues, and the court found the appellant's challenges insufficient to overturn the suitability finding. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the legality of Barnet's actions under the Housing Act 1996.

Issues

• Did the court determine whether Barnet's failure to conduct a proper housing needs assessment invalidated its subsequent offer of accommodation to the appellant under section 195(2) of the Housing Act 1996?
• Was the Review decision by Barnet deemed sufficient to remedy any deficiencies in the initial assessment of the appellant's housing needs, thereby affecting the legality of the accommodation's suitability?
• Did the court consider whether the personal housing plan prepared by Barnet was adequate and whether its alleged deficiencies impacted the assessment of the accommodation's suitability for the appellant?