RZH & Anor, R. (on the application of) v London Borough of Sutton [2025] EWHC 713 (Admin) (27 March 2025)

RZH & Anor, R. (on the application of) v London Borough of Sutton [2025] EWHC 713 (Admin) (27 March 2025)

The review decision did not unlawfully apply the RCO test, did not breach the Equality Act 2010 duties, and did not fail to safeguard or promote the welfare of the children. The officer considered all relevant disability-related evidence, provided adequate reasons, and the decision was within the range of reasonable responses. There was no mechanical application of the room and space standard, no failure to make necessary inquiries, and no breach of the PSED or other statutory duties.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 713 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: RZH; Claimant: DTU (by his litigation friend RZH); Respondent/defendant: London Borough of Sutton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 March 2025
Procedural Posture
S.204 Homelessness Appeal and Judicial Review (dual Listed) / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Appeal and judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Homelessness, Reasonable to Continue to Occupy Test, Public Sector Equality Duty, Reasonable Adjustments, Indirect Discrimination, Children's Welfare, Judicial Review, Statutory Duties, Disability Accommodation Needs
Administrative Law Housing Law Equality Law Disability Law Children Law Homelessness Reasonable to Continue to Occupy Test Public Sector Equality Duty +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RZH

Appellant/claimant

DTU (by his litigation friend RZH)

Claimant

London Borough of Sutton

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

S.204 Homelessness Appeal and Judicial Review (dual Listed) / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local authority's homelessness review decision lawfully applied the 'reasonable to continue to occupy' (RCO) test under s.175(3) Housing Act 1996 in light of the family's disability-related needs
  2. 2 Whether the decision breached statutory duties under the Equality Act 2010, including the public sector equality duty (PSED), reasonable adjustments, and indirect discrimination provisions
  3. 3 Whether the decision breached the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children under s.11 Children Act 2004

Ratio Decidendi

The review decision did not unlawfully apply the RCO test, did not breach the Equality Act 2010 duties, and did not fail to safeguard or promote the welfare of the children. The officer considered all relevant disability-related evidence, provided adequate reasons, and the decision was within the range of reasonable responses. There was no mechanical application of the room and space standard, no failure to make necessary inquiries, and no breach of the PSED or other statutory duties.

Court Disposition

Appeal and judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • No order for quashing the review decision
  • Anonymity order and reporting restrictions to remain in place