Abdulrahman Mohamed v. The London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

The House of Lords considered the meaning of "local connection" in the Housing Act 1996, in particular whether occupation of interim accommodation provided by a local authority can amount to "normal residence" under section 199(1)(a), and what is the relevant date for determining local connection on review. The court held that interim accommodation can count as normal residence for the purposes of section 199(1)(a) and that the material date for deciding whether an applicant "has a local connection" is the date of the decision or review. The reviewing officer may take into account facts which existed but were not known at the time of the original decision and matters arising before the date of the review. However, the reviewing officer in this case misdirected himself by applying an unduly high additional test requiring an "essential compassionate, social or support need" to establish a local connection by reason of special circumstances.

The respondents (Mr Mohamed and his wife) applied to the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham for homelessness assistance under the Housing Act 1996. The authority accepted a duty to provide temporary accommodation but concluded that both applicants had a local connection with the London Borough of Ealing and referred the applications to Ealing under the referral provisions of section 198. The applicants sought review and then judicial review/appeal following a decision upholding the referral.

Nature of the application: challenge to the authority's decision to refer the homelessness application to another authority and to the review decision that upheld the referral; applicants sought to establish a local connection with Hammersmith & Fulham so that the duty under section 193 would be owed by that authority.

Issues framed:

• Whether interim accommodation provided by the authority can constitute "normal residence" for the purposes of section 199(1)(a) (local connection).
• What is the relevant date for determining whether an applicant "has a local connection": the date of application, the date of the original decision, or the date of the review decision.
• Whether the reviewing officer is limited to considering facts known to the original decision-maker or may consider facts existing at the date of review.
• Whether the reviewing officer misdirected himself by imposing an additional requirement of an "essential compassionate, social or support need" to establish special circumstances.

Reasoning: Lord Slynn analysed the statutory scheme (sections 184, 193, 198, 199, 202, 203 and 204) and concluded that "normal residence" should be understood as the place where a person in fact resides for the relevant period and that interim accommodation provided under the homelessness duty can be such a place. The court held that the statutory phrase that an applicant "has a local connection" refers to the position at the date of the decision or review; accordingly the reviewing officer may consider facts up to the date of the review, including facts arising after the original decision and facts existing earlier but only discovered later. The reviewing officer erred in law by applying a separate, heightened test requiring proof of an essential compassionate, social or support need for local connection by reason of special circumstances. The House of Lords dismissed the appellant authority's appeal.

Appeal dismissed. The House of Lords held that occupation of interim accommodation can amount to "normal residence" for the purposes of section 199(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1996; the relevant date for determining whether an applicant "has a local connection" is the date of the decision or review; and a reviewing officer may consider facts known at the date of the review (including facts arising after the original decision). The reviewing officer had misdirected himself by imposing an additional test requiring an "essential compassionate, social or support need" and that was an error of law.