Young (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) (Appellant) v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Wandsworth (Respondent)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0001

Parties

Appellant(s)

Jerome Young

Respondent(s)

the London Borough of Wandsworth

Issue

Does the “main housing duty” owed under s193(2) Housing Act 1996 end automatically, or does it require a decision of the local housing authority to that effect? If a decision of the local housing authority is required, must that decision be notified to the applicant together with reasons for reaching that decision and with details of the right to request a review? If the local housing authority has not provided notification (on the assumption that there is an obligation to notify), can that breach be used as a defence by the applicant in possession proceedings?

Facts

The Appellant, a man in his mid-40s, was diagnosed by a psychiatrist as having autism spectrum disorder and traits of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder that rendered him vulnerable and lacking the capacity to conduct Court proceedings. On the basis of this report, the Council granted the Appellant a non-secure tenancy of a flat under s188(1) of the Housing Act 1996 (“the interim accommodation”). The Council also accepted that it owed the Appellant the main housing duty under s193 of that Act and would ensure that the accommodation which the Appellant was occupying under s188 would continue to be available to him until its duty under s193 was discharged. The Council further explained that its duty under s193 could cease if the Appellant accepted an offer of accommodation under Part VI of the 1996 Act. On 18 March 2020, the Council wrote a letter offering permanent accommodation to the Appellant. The letter specified that if the Appellant accepted the offer, the Council’s duty under s193 would cease. It also specified that the offer was final, and that the Appellant’s application would be cancelled if he refused the offer and its s193 duty would also cease. The letter went on to explain that: (1) if the Appellant considered the offer to be unsuitable, he could accept it but also request a review of its suitability, (2) if the Council then were to determine that the accommodation was suitable, its s193 duty would cease, and (3) if the Council determined that it was unsuitable, it would make a further final offer of accommodation. The Appellant accepted the offer and signed a tenancy agreement in relation to the property. On 10 June 2020, 5 days before the tenancy was due to take effect, the Appellant’s solicitor emailed the Council requesting a review of the decision that the property was suitable for him. The email noted certain problems that the Appellant had with the property. The Council conducted a suitability review of the property and found that it was suitable accommodation. In its review decision of 20 July 2020, it informed the Appellant that as a result of the offer and acceptance of the property, the Council had discharged “the previously accepted duty”. The Appellant did not vacate the interim accommodation he had been provided under s188 of the Act. The Council served him with a notice to quit requiring him to vacate that property. The Appellant (by way of litigation friend) defended the possession claim on the basis that the Council continued to owe the Appellant the main housing duty under s193(2), and that an eviction would breach that duty. The District Judge ordered the Appellant to give vacant possession. On appeal, HHJ Saggerson in the County Court dismissed the Appellant’s appeal and allowed the Council’s cross-appeal. On further appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal but stayed execution of the possession order pending the Appellant’s application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.