The Court of Appeal (CoA) heard a case in which the appellant requested a review of a decision which relieved the respondent’s duty under Section 189B of the Housing Act (HA) 1996 based on the appellant’s refusal of a final accommodation offer on the grounds of suitability.
Background:
The appellant is a single mother who has two disabled sons. In May 2019, the London Borough of Haringey's Children and Young Persons Services found that, by reason of the children, the family needed a three-bedroom house. In July 2021, the respondent accepted that it owed a relief duty to the appellant under Section 189B of the HA 1996 and that the appellant was entitled to a three-bedroom house.
She was placed in interim accommodation in two rooms at a hotel after she was assessed as being homeless, eligible for assistance, and having a priority need. On the 13th of September 2021, the Council offered her an assured shorthold tenancy of a three-bedroom property for a fixed term of 24 months. The offer letter stated that the offer was a final accommodation offer under Section 193A(4) of the HA 1996 and stipulated the consequences of refusing or accepting the offer.
Via her solicitors, the appellant rejected the offer on the 22nd of September 2021 on the basis that it was not suitable and asked for a review of the decision under Section 202(1)(h) of the HA 1996. In a letter dated the 24th of September 2021, the Council made clear that the relief duty had come to an end due to the rejection and that it did not have any further housing duty. The appellant did not request a review of this decision. Her solicitors sent a number of letters in respect of the suitability issue.
On the 20th of January 2022, the Council sent its review decision, which concluded that the accommodation was suitable on all grounds and highlighted the consequences of the refusal. The appellant requested accommodation pending an appeal under Section 204 of the HA which was refused by the Council on the next day. She did not seek judicial review, as suggested in the letter and was evicted from the family’s temporary accommodation on the 17th of February 2022.
The appellant brought a Section 204 appeal on the review decision of the 20th of January 2022. Letters were again exchanged with parties standing on their position. The appellant brought a second appeal to the County Court to review the 2023 decision (which is essentially the same as the 2022 one) which was dismissed due to the fact that it was not incumbent on the review officer to “embark on a comprehensive overhaul or rethink of the entire process in respect of matters that he has not been asked to review or reconsider.” The appellant appealed to the CoA.
Decision:
The CoA dismissed the appeal and upheld HHJ Saggerson’s decision. The Court analysed the framework of the HA 1996 and, in particular, Sections 202 and 204, which outline the rights of applicants to request reviews of specific decisions made by local authorities.
The CoA noted that the Council made the consequences clear, before and after the rejection of the final accommodation offer, that such a refusal would lead to the relief duty coming to an end and the main housing duty not applying thereafter. As a result, the appellant’s argument that there was no decision on the scope of the duty or under Section 184 was “a difficult interpretation to sustain, since the terms of the respondent's letters were clear and peremptory.”
Moreover, the appellant never requested a review of the decision of eligibility or scope of the duty. The Court agreed with HHJ Saggerson’s decision that the request for a review on suitability does not oblige the Council to review every aspect of the relationship. As the Court noted, “It did not have the effect of a blanket request to the respondent to review every aspect of its relationship with the appellant. Nor is this a case where reviewing suitability intrinsically required consideration of the scope of the respondent's duty to the appellant. It is therefore not possible to expand the ambit of the appellant's request for a review to cover anything other than suitability.”
Implications:
This judgement is significant, as it limits the matters that can be raised in a review decision on suitability. The decision also confirms that Section 202 of the HA 1996 creates a series of defined gateways. Local authorities have the right to restrict their review to the issues explicitly raised by the applicant without a need to review the entire relationship with the person.
It is also very clear that umbrella reviews, where applicants ask for reconsideration of additional statutory obligations, will not be allowed. Instead, any challenge on the authority’s procedures and whether further duties are owed should form a separate judicial review.