Priority need

When he became homeless, Mr Hall applied to Wandsworth for accommodation. The council decided that he had no priority need as he was not “vulnerable” under homelessness legislation and so would have no more difficulty in finding a home than any other homeless person.

The decision was confirmed on review and an appeal dismissed by a county court judge.

The Court of Appeal allowed a further appeal. It decided that the council’s original decision had been wrong because the test of “vulnerability” was not whether a person would have greater difficulty in finding a home but whether he would be at greater risk of harm, while homeless, than an ordinary person. Although the same mistake had not been made by the reviewing officer, the regulations on review made special provision about what should happen if a first decision were deficient but was going to be upheld on different grounds.

In such a case, the applicant had to be given notice that the same decision was likely to be made by the reviewing officer (but on correct grounds) and be given an opportunity to make representations. Here the reviewing officer should have recognised the deficiency in the original decision and then met the requirements of the review regulations. That had not been done so the review would need to be undertaken again.