No one would wish to be homeless, but your position on housing waiting lists will be greatly improved if you are assessed as being in priority need. The definition of that phrase has exercised legal brains for many years but the Court of Appeal has now given guidance on the issue in an important test case.
A man in his 20s suffered from a personality disorder and chronic leg pain. He had been admitted to hospital on a number of occasions and had at one point been sectioned due to his violent behaviour and intrusive thoughts. After undergoing major surgery on his leg during one hospital admission, he applied to a local authority for homelessness assistance.
The council took the view, later confirmed after a review, that he was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, and that he was not in priority need of housing. His physical condition was not long-standing and did not significantly impair his functioning. His mental health history suggested an intermittent pattern of impulsive behaviour rather than an enduring pattern of inability. The man’s challenge to the council’s decision was subsequently rejected by a judge.
In allowing his appeal, the Court found that the reviewing officer had applied the wrong legal test. The correct test was comparative and the issue was whether he was more vulnerable than an ordinary person who became homeless. The test enshrined in Section 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 also connoted a significantly greater degree of vulnerability than an ordinarily vulnerable person.
In essence, the reviewing officer should have asked himself whether the man would suffer more harm than an ordinary person in consequence of being without accommodation. His case was remitted to the council for redetermination.