Assessing vulnerability

Mr Griffin was homeless and applied to Westminster for accommodation. When the council decided that he did not have a "priority need", Griffin asked for a review. He said he was "vulnerable" as a result of depression.

The review officer accepted that Griffin suffered from depression, but decided that its severity did not make Griffin less able to fend for himself than an ordinary homeless person "so that injury or detriment would occur".

The county court judge allowed an appeal. He said the review officer had applied too high a test. The correct test was whether the applicant was "likely to" suffer injury or detriment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the council's appeal. There was no test of "likelihood" when assessing vulnerability. Although the Code of Guidance suggested that there was (paragraph 8.13) it did not represent the law. The correct test (which the review officer had applied) was: would the homeless claimant, because of his reactive depression, be less well able to fend for himself than an ordinary homeless person so that he would suffer injury or detriment? "Detriment" might include an increased risk of serious ailment or suicide. Such a risk did not have to be measured in percentage terms.