Geeta Koska succeeds in quashing homeless decision. The underlying issue in the appeal was the appellant’s ability to navigate 15 steps to his property in light of his medical conditions which restricted his mobility, rendering him “homeless” as defined under the Housing Act 1996, s.175(3).

The appeal was allowed on all grounds, including breaches of the PSED and the Children Act 2004. The judgment highlighted that the review officer’s conclusion that the “decision is also not in breach of our duty under Section 11 Children Act 2004 in relation to your son” was “devoid of any reasons” and failed to engage with the evidence regarding the safety and welfare of the Appellant’s son.