Assessing Intentionality
- Housing Reviews
- Dec 11
- 3 min read
In City of London Corporation v Bussandra [2025] EWCA Civ 1580, the Court of Appeal confirmed that my approach to determining when an act can be considered “deliberate,” even where the applicant has mental health issues, was correct. I was also found to have been entitled to reject conclusions provided by supporting medical practitioners and also that I had complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty. This overturned the county court’s decision.
Mr Bussandra had voluntarily given up accommodation in Brighton in December 2015. I was required to assess whether this decision stemmed from limited mental capacity or from a temporary aberration—such as those caused by mental illness, frailty, or substance misuse. Mr Bussandra suffered from several mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety with obsessive–compulsive traits, as well as post-traumatic stress disorder.
The judgment can be found here:
Below are a few observations from my perspective as the reviews officer in this case.
1. Complaints About the “Wrong Test”
One of the arguments advanced by Mr Bussandra’s barrister was that I had applied the wrong test when stating:
“I am not disputing that you suffer from mental health issues. This clearly has an impact on your day-to-day activities, but I am not satisfied that this is to the extent that you are unable to rationalise and think clearly. I certainly do not agree with Ms Pisaneschi that you were suffering from a major depressive episode and were unable to rationalise and think clearly in December 2015/January 2016.”
His barrister argued that this was not the correct legal test. However, because their solicitor expressly argued in the review submissions that the applicant had been suffering from a major depressive episode and was unable to rationalise and think clearly, I had no option but to address that submission directly. To then criticise me for doing so is, in my view, unreasonable.
This is the second time I have encountered this. In Hussaini v Islington LBC [2025] EWCA Civ 22, the applicant’s solicitor asserted that the applicant had a local connection with Islington because they “needed to be near the Baobab Centre.” When the reviews officer addressed that very point, the appellant argued on appeal that the wrong test had been applied and that an applicant need not “need” to be near a facility for special circumstances to apply.
2. Rejecting Supporting Medical Evidence/Conclusions
A key reason the Court of Appeal upheld my decision was its conclusion that I had been entitled to reject the opinions of various medical professionals.
Medical practitioners frequently provide letters of support without making enquiries into the factual impact of the applicant’s condition, instead relying solely on the applicant’s own account. A reviewer is entitled to reject a medical professional’s conclusions where there is evidence to justify doing so. The Court of Appeal confirmed that my approach was reasonable.
3. Compliance with the PSED
In many review and appeal representations, solicitors argue that the reviews officer failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) or “paid no more than lip service” to it. In this appeal, it was said that I “did not apply the requisite sharp focus” when considering whether Mr Bussandra had “deliberately” left the Brighton flat or whether it had been reasonable for him to continue to occupy it.
Although local authorities often feel reassured when I include a standalone paragraph on the PSED, this is not legally required. The real test is whether the reviews officer engaged with the PSED in substance. This can be achieved by considering the applicant’s medical conditions or other protected characteristics, assessing their impact in detail, and then applying that analysis to the relevant question—such as suitability, vulnerability, or intentionality.
Both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have repeatedly confirmed this approach. In this case, the Court of Appeal identified all the paragraphs in which I considered Mr Bussandra’s medical issues and their impact on him. I also considered whether it was reasonable for him to continue to occupy his Brighton flat in light of his medical conditions and other protected characteristics.
Other Court of Appeal Decisions in 2025
This is the third Court of Appeal case I have won in 2025. The other two are:
The Court of Appeal confirmed that a reviewer is entitled to consider only the reasons given for requesting the review and not matters outside those grounds.
The Court of Appeal held that a suitability review decision is not invalidated by a council’s failure to complete a proper Housing Needs Assessment.
Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused in both cases.
Minos Perdios
Reviews Manager
Comments