Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council

Where a local housing authority’s homelessness referral decision is reviewed, the existence of a local connection must be determined as at the date of review. The reviewer must consider afresh all relevant facts then known, including changes occurring after the original decision.

Residence in interim accommodation provided under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996 may constitute normal residence of the applicant’s own choice and contribute to a local connection. Its weight depends on whether the applicant has developed real permanence and commitment to the district. A local connection need not amount to an essential compassionate, social or support need.

Two homelessness appeals were heard together as test cases. Each receiving local housing authority had accepted that the applicant was eligible, unintentionally homeless and in priority need, but referred responsibility to another authority for want of a local connection.

Hammersmith and Fulham referred Mr Mohammed’s case to Ealing. Its reviewing officer upheld that decision, and the county court dismissed his statutory appeal. In the related case, a county court quashed Ealing’s decision to refer Mr Surdonja’s case to Westminster, and Ealing appealed.

The Court of Appeal considered the date at which a local connection must be determined, whether residence in interim accommodation could contribute to that connection, and whether a statutory review required all relevant facts to be considered afresh.

1. Disposition. Mr Mohammed’s appeal was allowed unanimously. Ealing’s appeal in the related Surdonja case was dismissed. Henry LJ gave the judgment, with which Potter LJ agreed.

2. Where a referral decision is reviewed under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996, the material date for deciding whether the applicant or a household member has a local connection is the date of review. If there is no review, it is the date of the original decision. The statutory language uses the present tense, and neither the Act nor the applicable review regulations authorises the authority to disregard relevant later events.

3. A reviewing officer must take account of all relevant facts known at the review date, including changes occurring after the original decision. Such changes may establish or remove a local connection. The review is the final administrative decision and must involve fresh consideration of the whole case. It is not confined to points identified in the applicant’s representations or to checking the original decision for evident error.

4. Residence in interim accommodation supplied under section 188 can constitute normal residence of the applicant’s own choice for section 199(1)(a). Section 199(3) identifies the excluded forms of residence, and the Secretary of State had not specified any further exclusion. Interim accommodation was therefore not to be disregarded merely because it was provided pursuant to the authority’s statutory duty.

5. Normal residence is one element in deciding whether a real local connection has developed. The authority must assess the weight of the residence and the extent to which the applicant has established permanence and commitment to the district. Schooling, family support, employment and other integration may be relevant. Family associations and special circumstances are matters of fact and degree; the practical closeness of a family relationship may matter more than precise consanguinity.

6. The reviewing officer in Mr Mohammed’s case had also imposed an excessive test by requiring an essential compassionate, social or support need. Section 199 contains no such threshold. The failure to count residence in section 188 accommodation and the use of that heightened test were fundamental errors of law. The application required reconsideration on the correct law and the facts existing at the new review.

1. Court of Appeal: Mr Mohammed’s appeal was allowed unanimously. The related appeal by Ealing in Surdonja was dismissed. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

2. Wandsworth County Court: Judge Richard Walker dismissed Mr Mohammed’s statutory appeal against Hammersmith and Fulham’s review decision.

3. Brentford County Court: Judge Marcus Edwards quashed Ealing’s review decision in Mr Surdonja’s case.