Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council

For homelessness referrals under the Housing Act 1996, local connection must be assessed at the date of the review, or at the date of the initial decision if no review occurs. The reviewing authority must reconsider all relevant facts known to it afresh, including changes since the initial decision. Its examination extends beyond the particular grounds raised by the applicant.

Residence in interim accommodation can constitute normal residence of the applicant’s own choice and contribute to a local connection. Its weight depends on the circumstances, including the permanence and commitment established during that residence. Local connection must exist in real terms, but the applicant need not demonstrate an essential compassionate, social or support need to live in the district.

Two joined appeals concerned local housing authorities’ decisions to refer eligible homeless applicants to other authorities. Nikola Surdonja, a refugee from Croatia, applied to Ealing after his wife and children joined him in accommodation belonging to his wife’s uncle. Ealing provided interim accommodation but referred his application to Westminster. Abdurahman Mohammed, displaced by the civil war in Somalia, applied with his wife to Hammersmith and Fulham. That authority provided interim accommodation but referred the application to Ealing because his wife had a local connection there.

Both applicants requested statutory reviews and supplied further evidence of connections with the receiving districts. Both referral decisions were confirmed. Judge Marcus Edwards, sitting at Brentford County Court, quashed the decision concerning Mr Surdonja, and Ealing appealed. Judge Richard Walker, sitting at Wandsworth County Court, dismissed Mr Mohammed’s appeal, and Mr Mohammed appealed.

The common issues were the date for assessing local connection, whether occupation of interim accommodation could contribute to it, and whether a statutory review required consideration of all relevant facts afresh.

Mr Mohammed’s appeal was allowed and Ealing’s appeal was dismissed unanimously. Henry LJ gave the judgment, with which Potter LJ agreed.

1. The material date for assessing local connection was the date of the statutory review, or the date of the initial decision where no review occurred. The Housing Act 1996 imposed no restriction confining the authority to circumstances existing when the application was made. A review was the final administrative stage preceding an appeal under section 204. Relevant changes could establish or remove a connection and had to be considered.

2. The reviewing officer had to examine all relevant facts known to the authority afresh. The review extended to the original file and subsequent representations and evidence. It was not confined to identifying obvious errors or addressing the particular points raised by the applicant. Regulation 8 of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures and Amendment) Regulations 1996, which governed both reviews, required consideration of facts known at the review date. The later replacement of its wording supplied no basis for disregarding that requirement.

3. Occupation of interim accommodation under section 188 could constitute normal residence of the applicant’s own choice. Section 199(3) identified disqualifying circumstances, and the Secretary of State had specified no additional circumstances under section 199(5). The weight of interim residence remained for the authority, having regard to the applicant’s permanence and commitment to the district. The requirement for a connection in real terms stated in R v Eastleigh Council, ex parte Betts remained relevant.

4. The redistributive purpose of the legislation had to be considered alongside its protection of applicants who established local connections. Differences between applicants housed inside and outside a district did not justify excluding qualifying residence. The 1996 scheme also reduced the earlier concern about queue jumping because the homelessness duty secured temporary accommodation rather than immediate priority for permanent housing.

5. Family associations and special circumstances were matters of fact and degree. Actual closeness could matter more than precise consanguinity. Requiring an essential compassionate, social or support need imposed an unlawfully stringent additional threshold.

6. Both authorities had wrongly excluded residence in interim accommodation. Ealing’s failure to reconsider the relevant facts was not excused by the applicant’s failure to identify that precise error in his representations. Mr Mohammed was entitled to a further review on the correct legal basis and on the facts existing when that review occurred.

• Court of Appeal: In the joined appeals reported at [2001] QB 97 , the court unanimously allowed Mr Mohammed’s appeal and dismissed Ealing’s appeal. Mr Mohammed’s application required a further review on the correct legal basis.
• Wandsworth County Court: Judge Richard Walker dismissed Mr Mohammed’s statutory appeal against Hammersmith and Fulham’s review decision on 17 June 1999.
• Brentford County Court: Judge Marcus Edwards quashed Ealing’s review decision concerning Mr Surdonja. Ealing appealed against that order.
• Local housing authorities: Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham initially referred the applications to Westminster and Ealing respectively. Each authority confirmed its referral following a statutory review.