Facts: Mr Zarzour was a blind, destitute asylum-seeker. He was living with two friends in a studio flat but that could not continue. Hillingdon assessed him as being able to undertake all activities of daily living once he had memorised his surroundings and, on that basis, concluded that he did not require ‘care and attention’ for the purposes of section 21 of the NAA 1948: if accommodated by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Hillingdon would provide ‘settling in’ assistance under section 29 of the NAA 1948, until Mr Zarzour had memorised his surroundings.

Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Laws and Etherton LJJ, Lewison J) held that:

1) The authority’s own findings in the assessment compelled a conclusion that the claimant was in need of care and attention because the claimant needed others to do what he could not do for himself, and a reasonable authority was bound to find that he fell within s21(1)(a).

2. The decision in R (M) v Slough BC had made only a very modest change to the law as explained in R (Westminster CC) v NASS and did not mean, in unqualified terms, that it was open to local authorities to look to see whether a person’s needs might be met through section 29 of the 1948 Act and section 2 of the CSDPA 1970 with accommodation, if necessary, provided by the National Asylum Support Service: NASS support was intended to be residual and a local authority could consider the provision of services under section 29 and section 2 combined with NASS accommodation only if they had first concluded that the asylum-seeker was outwith section 21(1)(a).