Glasgow City Council v X (Scotland) [2025] UKSC 13 (09 April 2025)

A homeless family with a son with autism was provided four-bedroom interim accommodation by Glasgow City Council, despite an assessment recommending five bedrooms for permanent housing. The Supreme Court held that the interim duty only requires local authorities to 'take into account' household needs, not to meet all needs. The appeal was dismissed.

Facts

The appellant, a refugee granted asylum in 2020, became homeless along with her husband and four children, including a son with autism requiring additional support. Glasgow City Council, as the relevant local authority, secured temporary accommodation for the family in a four-apartment property (three bedrooms and a living room) in February 2021. An occupational therapy assessment dated 21 July 2021 recommended that the family required a five-apartment property to accommodate their son’s additional support needs. Despite this assessment, the family remained in the four-apartment accommodation due to scarcity of larger properties.

The Appellant’s Challenge

The appellant challenged the four-apartment accommodation as unsuitable under section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and the Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 2014, arguing that the local authority was obliged to provide accommodation meeting all the household’s needs, including her son’s special needs.

Issues

The central issue was the proper interpretation of article 4(b) of the 2014 Order, specifically whether accommodation is unsuitable unless it meets all the needs of the applicant and household members, or whether the local authority need only ‘take into account’ those needs when assessing suitability.

Judgment

Lady Simler, with whom Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lord Sales and Lord Hamblen agreed, dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court held that there is a fundamental distinction between the interim duty under section 29 and the permanent accommodation duty under section 31 of the 1987 Act.

The Distinction Between Interim and Permanent Duties

The Court emphasised that section 31 and section 32(5) require permanent accommodation to ‘meet any special needs’ of the applicant and household. By contrast, article 4(b) of the 2014 Order requires only that the local authority assess suitability ‘taking into account the needs of the household’. This is a process duty requiring consideration of needs, not a results-driven duty requiring all needs to be met.

Practical Considerations

The Court noted that the interim duty arises before a full needs assessment can take place, and the statutory scheme recognises the practical constraints on housing resources. What is suitable on an interim basis while seeking permanent accommodation may differ from what is suitable in the longer term.

Rationality as the Control

The assessment of suitability is subject to judicial review on rationality grounds. Provided the local authority reaches a decision within the range of reasonable decisions available, taking relevant matters into account, it will not be unlawful simply because some needs have not been met.

Application to the Facts

The Court found that the respondent had properly taken into account the needs of the appellant’s household. The caseworker’s evidence demonstrated consideration of the son’s need for his own room and the occupational therapist’s recommendation. The decision to provide four-apartment accommodation, allowing the living room to serve temporarily as sleeping accommodation for the son, was well within the range of reasonable decisions.

Implications

This judgment clarifies the scope of the interim housing duty owed to homeless persons in Scotland. Local authorities must consider the needs of homeless households when securing temporary accommodation, but are not obliged to secure accommodation that meets every need. The duty to meet all special needs arises only at the permanent accommodation stage under section 31. The decision provides important guidance on the practical operation of homelessness legislation in Scotland, recognising the constraints on housing resources while ensuring meaningful consideration of household needs in interim accommodation decisions.

Verdict: Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Inner House's decision that the respondent lawfully discharged its interim duty under section 29 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 by providing four-apartment temporary accommodation, having properly taken into account the needs of the appellant's household.

Source: Glasgow City Council v X (Scotland) [2025] UKSC 13 (09 April 2025)