Joshua Swirsky discusses the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse the claimant permission to appeal the judgment in R(Campbell) v London Borough of Ealing and what it means for local authorities. Joshua represented the local authority throughout the proceedings.
The Supreme Court rejected Mr Campbell's application for permission to appeal on the basis that the proposed appeal did not raise an arguable point of law.
Impact of the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant permission to appeal
The Supreme Court’s refusal means that the judgment of the Court of Appeal represents the law as it currently stands.
Duty to accommodate under the Housing Act 1996 vs s.23 Care Act 2014
The case is important because it draws a clear line between local authority obligations under the Care Act 2014 and the Housing Act 1996. The position was summarised as follows by Bean LJ at [63]:
Section 23 of the Care Act 2014 on its natural meaning lays down that, where a local authority is required to offer housing accommodation to someone in accordance with its allocation scheme under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996, it cannot be required to provide ordinary accommodation under the 2014 Act. Where the authority is required by Part VII of the 1996 Act to make provision for an applicant who is homeless and is not excluded from eligibility then similarly the same duty does not arise under the Care Act.
Mr Campbell’s counter-argument was described as follows at [61]:
Mr Swirsky was right to submit that to accede to the Appellant's arguments would risk turning social workers into housing officers. It would impose severe strains on adult social care budgets. Further, in non-unitary local authority areas outside London where a county council is responsible for adult social care and a district council allocates housing, it would create an anomaly whereby an individual needing accommodation together with care and support could seek it from the county council, whereas an individual (perhaps the same one) classified as needing to move because of illness or disability could apply under Part VI of the 1996 Act to be placed on the district council's housing allocation list with a high degree of priority.
This should settle the extent of the different duties between housing authorities and social services authorities; which are often vested in different local authorities in non-unitary areas. Of course, the situation remains different for people who are ineligible for Housing Act 1996 assistance, eg asylum seekers.
Background to the appeal
The claimant, Mr Campbell had been diagnosed with a condition which causes him to be partially sighted. He also suffered with depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder and has complex care needs.
The local authority had funded Mr Campbell’s ‘temporary accommodation’ from 2016 on the understanding that he would bid for properties via the council’s housing allocation system. He had told the local authority he was dissatisfied with that temporary accommodation.
There was no dispute that Mr Campbell had eligible care and support needs when the local authority conducted assessments. Though he was never assessed as having a care and support need for ‘accommodation plus’.
Also, his family and partner were meeting those needs so he declined local authority-managed care or direct payments, and refused to cooperate with a financial assessment.
In February 2022, the local authority gave Mr Campbell 8 weeks’ notice to withdraw its funding of his accommodation.
Mr Campbell applied for judicial review of the local authority’s decision.
Judicial review proceedings
During the judicial review proceedings, Mr Campbell claimed he had a need for care and support under the Care Act, which required him to be provided with accommodation for effective delivery of that care and support.
The local authority argued Mr Campbell was not entitled to accommodation being provided under the Care Act 2014 because he is eligible for housing under either Part VI or Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.
The High Court dismissed his application in January 2023.
Mr Campbell then applied for permission to appeal which was granted.
Court of Appeal judgment
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Mr Campbell’s appeal.
The court held that:
- 23 Care Act 2014 provides that if a local authority is required to offer accommodation to someone in accordance with its allocation scheme under Part VI Housing Act 1996, it cannot be required to provide ordinary accommodation to that person under the Care Act 2014.
- if a local authority is required by Part VII Housing Act 1996 to provide for a homeless applicant who is not excluded from eligibility then similarly the same duty does not arise under the Care Act
- given s 23 Care Act meant that there was no duty under that Act to re-house Mr Campbell, the local authority did not act improperly or irrationally in taking the decision to cease funding his temporary accommodation.
Read the judgment in full in R(Campbell) v London Borough of Ealing [2024] EWCA Civ 540