Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council

Where a homeless applicant has a statutory right to review a referral decision, local connection must be assessed by reference to the facts at the date of the review. In the absence of a review, the material date is the initial decision.

Occupation of interim accommodation may constitute normal residence of the applicant’s own choice for the purposes of local connection. Its weight depends on whether the applicant has acquired real permanence and commitment to the district. A reviewing officer must reconsider all facts known at the date of review, including material changes since the initial decision, rather than confining the review to the applicant’s representations or obvious errors.

These conjoined test appeals concerned referrals of statutory homelessness duties between local housing authorities under the Housing Act 1996. Ealing had referred Mr Surdonja’s case to Westminster. Hammersmith and Fulham had referred Mr Mohammed’s case to Ealing. Each applicant had been accommodated on an interim basis in the receiving authority’s district and requested a statutory review.

At Brentford County Court, Judge Marcus Edwards quashed Ealing’s reviewed referral decision. At Wandsworth County Court, Judge Richard Walker dismissed Mr Mohammed’s statutory appeal against Hammersmith and Fulham’s reviewed decision. The Court of Appeal addressed the material date for local connection, whether interim accommodation could found normal residence of the applicant’s own choice, and the proper scope of the statutory review.

1. Disposition. Henry LJ, with whom Potter LJ agreed, dismissed Ealing’s appeal in the Surdonja case and allowed Mr Mohammed’s appeal against Hammersmith and Fulham.

2. For a referral under section 198 of the Housing Act 1996, the question whether the applicant or household member has a local connection is determined at the date of the statutory review. If there is no review, it is determined at the date of the initial decision. The statutory appeal lies only after the review, which is therefore the final administrative decision. The use of the present tense in section 184(2), the statutory review scheme and the former review regulations all supported that construction.

3. Interim occupation under section 188 can be normal residence of the applicant’s own choice under section 199(1)(a). Section 199(3) supplies the relevant statutory exclusions from residence of the applicant’s own choice, subject only to further specification by the Secretary of State under section 199(5). The fact of residence is not conclusive: the authority must assess its weight in deciding whether a real local connection has been established.

4. A review is a fresh examination of an inquisitorial administrative decision. The reviewing officer must consider all relevant facts known at the date of review, including changed circumstances which may establish or destroy local connection, priority need or another relevant basis of the decision. The officer must not limit the review to points expressly raised by the applicant.

5. Family association and special circumstances are matters of fact and degree, assessed from the position of the applicant and household. A requirement for an essential compassionate, social or support need imposed too high a threshold for local connection.

6. Ealing had wrongly excluded residence in interim accommodation and failed to consider the updated evidence of residence and family association. Its error was fundamental, so the County Court’s quashing order stood. Hammersmith and Fulham had made the same error and had additionally applied the impermissibly high threshold. Its reviewed decision was to be reconsidered on the correct legal basis.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The court heard conjoined test appeals. It dismissed Ealing’s appeal concerning Mr Surdonja and allowed Mr Mohammed’s appeal concerning Hammersmith and Fulham.
• County Courts — Brentford County Court had quashed Ealing’s reviewed referral decision. Wandsworth County Court had dismissed Mr Mohammed’s statutory appeal against Hammersmith and Fulham’s reviewed referral decision.