Alghile v City Of Westminster

Under section 193(5) of the Housing Act 1996, an applicant cannot accept an offer of accommodation while reserving a right to challenge its suitability by requesting a review. Acceptance must be unqualified. Refusal may trigger cessation of the authority’s duty, subject to the statutory conditions, and the authority’s suitability decision may be reviewed. The Court of Appeal held that R v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC, ex parte Byfield was wrongly decided on this point. An offer under section 193(5) necessarily indicates that the authority considers the accommodation suitable, although good practice requires that this be made clear. The statute does not require an applicant who refuses the offer to be told of a right to request a review.

The applicant was accepted as owed the homelessness duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. The authority nominated her for a two-bedroom house, but she did not view or accept it. The authority treated its duty as discharged, and its reviewing officer upheld that decision, including the conclusion that the accommodation was suitable.

On appeal under section 204, the county court followed R v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC, ex parte Byfield and held that an applicant could accept an offer while requesting a suitability review. The authority appealed. The central issue was whether acceptance and a review request could coexist under section 193(5), and whether the applicant had to be informed of such a right.

1. Appeal. Lord Justice Tuckey, with Lord Justice Longmore and Sir Christopher Slade agreeing, concluded that the county court’s decision on the Byfield point was wrong. The appeal was disposed of by making no order because the applicant had subsequently accepted accommodation under Part VI and the issue was academic.

2. Section 193(5) is concerned with refusal of an offer and its mandatory consequence: the authority ceases to owe the section 193 duty if the statutory conditions are met. The authority cannot make an offer under that subsection unless satisfied that it is suitable. The offer therefore necessarily communicates that conclusion.

3. An applicant may request a review of the authority’s decision as to suitability under section 202(1)(f), and of the decision that the section 193 duty has ceased under section 202(1)(b). However, section 193(5) does not permit an applicant to accept the offer while asserting that it is not accepted because it is unsuitable. Such qualified acceptance would substantially defeat the statutory purpose of enabling the authority to discharge its duty by making one offer.

4. The authority is required by section 202(3) to notify the applicant of decisions falling within section 202(1)(f), despite the absence of an express notification requirement in the relevant provisions. Good practice requires an offer under section 193(5) to state clearly that the authority considers the accommodation suitable and to refer to section 193(5). The statute does not imply a requirement to tell an applicant who refuses the offer that he or she may request a review.

5. The contrast with section 193(7), concerning Part VI accommodation, supports the conclusion that section 193(5) provides a more summary process. A dissatisfied applicant must choose between accepting the accommodation or refusing it and risking that the duty will cease. A fresh application may be possible under section 193(9), but the circumstances were not fully argued.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The county court’s decision following R v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC, ex parte Byfield was held to be wrong on the statutory construction point. The appeal was disposed of by making no order.
• Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Knight QC held that an applicant could accept an offer of accommodation and request a suitability review, and quashed the review decision on Wednesbury grounds. The latter issue was not heard on appeal because it had become academic.