LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD v A  (2025) EWCA Civ 1355 concerns OUT OF BOROUGH PLACEMENTS. The Court of Appeal holds that a failure to give NOTIFICATION under Section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 within the statutory time limit does NOT affect the suitability of accommodation offered. It is the suitability of the offered accommodation that is the subject of any review . Any appeal must challenge the lawfulness of that decision. The duty under Section 208 is a “collateral duty”. Breach does not impugn the lawfulness of a review decision or the suitability of the offered accommodation. An appeal under Section 204 is limited to grounds that go to the legality of the review decision.

In WANDSWORTH LBC v YOUNG (2025) EWCA Civ 1336 Newey LJ addressed a local authority’s NOTIFICATION OBLIGATIONS to its tenants after ending its MAIN HOUSING DUTY under Section 193, as amended, in Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.

Where there have been deficiencies in a housing assessment under Section 189A of the Housing Act 1996, and the authority’s subsequent review under Section 202 has cured those deficiencies, the review decision cannot be set aside on the basis of those original deficiencies. So reaffirmed in FATOLAHZADEH v BARNET LBC ( 2025 ) EWCA Civ 1174.

Entitlement to housing benefit without having to make a fresh claim in changed circumstances is the subject matter of SoS FOR WORK AND PENSIONS v SC/MJ v BROMLEY LBC (2025) UKUT 299 (AAC).  One of the entitlement conditions was presence in Great Britain.  They were temporarily out of Great Britain, during which time the authorities ruled that the original benefit award was superseded (the supersession decision), which had the effect that their continuing benefit entitlement came to an end and required them to make a new claim on their return.  The issue was whether there should have been a closed period supersession decision, applying only whilst they were outside Great Britain.  The answer was: No.

R ( AN ) v BARKING AND DAGENHAM LBC ( 2025 ) EWHC 2265 ( Admin ) is one of many judicial review claims which raises issues on the adequacy in difficult circumstances of efforts by a local housing authority ( LHA ) to provide housing assistance to a homeless family. The Court stresses ( para3 ) the importance of LHAs carrying out “ proper and informed assessments “ of the housing needs of homeless persons, and ( para 4 ) that where the only housing accommodation they have yet been able to offer to a family with children is temporary bed & breakfast accommodation that “ continues no longer than necessary.” There were two grounds of challenge. Ground 1 concerned the lawfulness of the LHA’s Housing Needs Assessment. That succeeded. Ground 2 was that the LHA’s “ Temporary Accommodation Placement Policy “ was unlawful. That failed.

FERTRE v VALE OF WHITE HORSE DC ( 2025 ) EWCA Civ 1057 is a case brought against a local housing authority’s refusal of housing assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. The grant of pre-settled status to EU citizens and their family members under post- Brexit arrangements does NOT itself automatically confer the right to EQUAL TREATMENT with UK citizens under Article 23 of the WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT in respect  of social assistance. To enjoy equal treatment an EU citizen needs to be complying with the conditions on residence rights set out in various EU instruments applied by Part 2 of the Withdrawal Agreement.

R ( AA ) v WALTHAM FOREST LBC ( 2025 ) EWHC 1625 ( Admin ) concerns a local housing authority’s duties under Section 189A of the HOUSING ACT 1996. This relates to assessments and personalised plan. If the authority are satisfied that an applicant is homeless ( or threatened with homelessness ) and eligible for ASSISTANCE then Section 189A (1) provides that the authority MUST make an ASSESSMENT of the applicant’s case. Section 189A (2) states what an assessment MUST include. The Judge rejects a submission that there is a remedy alternative to Judicial Review with respect to a challenge to a Housing Needs Assessment and/or Personal Housing Plan.

A “ person managing “a house in multiple occupation within the meaning of Section 263 of the Housing Act 2004 is subject to statutory duties in relation to licensing and management, and may be exposed to the risk of sanctions. CETIN v EPPING FOREST DC (2025) UKUT 196 (LC) considers the interpretation of the expression, and rules that it does NOT include a residential letting agent who was instructed on a “ let only “ basis to let a room in an HMO, and who had no further involvement with the property after receiving a single instalment of rent on the day of the letting.

The issue in NORTON v HARINGEY LBC (2025) EWCA Civ 746 was whether a local authority is precluded from determining the suitability of offered accommodation if it has not prepared a lawful assessment pursuant to Section 189Aof the Housing Act 1996. An assessment of suitability based on an unlawful or otherwise legally flawed assessment under section 189A is itself legally flawed, but what previous cases have not addressed is whether an authority is precluded from independently and lawfully assessing suitability in the absence of a Section 189A assessment or Personal Housing Plan. The Court of Appeal held that the authority was not precluded. The decision on suitability contained no legal flaw.

In R ( BANO ) v WALTHAM FOREST LBC ( 2025 ) EWCA Civ 92 the Court of Appeal holds that a local housing authority’s main housing duty, under Section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996, comes to an end automatically upon refusal by the applicant of a private rented sector offer. The authority’s duty under Section 193 ceases as soon as a formal offer of accommodation under Part 6 of the Act  is refused or a private rented sector offer in respect of which the requisite information has been supplied is accepted or refused. The authority does not have to make a a decision that it considers its duty to have ceased or inform the applicant that its duty has ceased.