Bernard v London Borough Of Enfield

A statutory decision-maker must give reasons that are proper, adequate and intelligible, addressing the substantial issues raised and enabling the affected person to understand why the decision was reached and whether it is challengeable. In deciding whether homelessness resulted from a deliberate failure to pay, a housing authority must consider whether non-payment arose from inadequate resources rather than a deliberate choice. The reasons need not contain arithmetical calculations or an itemised balance sheet of income and living expenses. The detailed affordability matters in the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 concern different statutory questions and do not impose such a requirement in an intentional homelessness decision.

The appellant appealed under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against a county court decision dismissing his appeal from the respondent housing authority’s review decision. The authority had concluded that he was intentionally homeless because the family had lost accommodation after failing to pay weekly charges that were ineligible for housing benefit.

The county court rejected grounds alleging inadequate enquiries, inadequate reasons, failure to consider relevant matters and Wednesbury unreasonableness. Permission for a second appeal was granted only on the question whether the review decision gave adequate reasons, particularly for concluding that the failure to pay was deliberate rather than caused by inadequate financial resources.

1. Appeal dismissed. The only permitted ground concerned the statutory duty to give reasons. The other complaints about enquiries, relevant considerations and Wednesbury unreasonableness were outside the scope of permission.
2. The duty to give reasons exists so that affected persons can understand why they succeeded or failed and can assess whether the decision is valid and open to challenge. The reasons must be proper, adequate and intelligible and address the substantial points raised, as explained in R v Westminster City Council, Ex parte Ermakov [1996] 2 All ER 302.
3. When applying section 191 of the Housing Act 1996, the authority had to consider whether the failure to pay the ineligible charge was caused by inability to pay, including inadequacy of resources, rather than by a deliberate decision. The approach in R v London Borough of Wandsworth, Ex parte Hawthorne (1994) 27 HLR 59 was therefore satisfied.
4. The review letter showed that the Panel considered the applicant’s income, the additional expenses associated with his wife’s disability, the ineligible charge and the submissions made on his behalf. It was unnecessary to provide itemised calculations or a detailed financial balance sheet.
5. The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 was concerned with whether it was reasonable to continue to occupy accommodation and whether accommodation was suitable. It did not govern whether non-payment was deliberate and did not require detailed calculations in reasons for an intentional homelessness decision.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, subject to leave for enforcement and detailed assessment. Leave to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from Edmonton County Court dismissed. Permission had been limited to the adequacy of the reasons in the housing authority’s review decision.
• Edmonton County Court: His Honour Judge Hodge dismissed the section 204 appeal from the authority’s section 202 review decision and refused permission to appeal.