Voak v London Borough Of Lambeth

In the statutory homelessness process, asking an applicant why offered accommodation was refused does not, without more, create a legitimate expectation that the authority will make a second suitability decision before the statutory review. The court should not add an unprovided stage to a statutory timetable. Where the applicant has been clearly told that only one offer will be made and that refusal cannot be retracted, the policy and notice do not create a legitimate expectation of a later opportunity to accept the accommodation. The proper route is the review provided by section 202 of the Housing Act 1986.

The applicant, who had three children, was accepted as homeless and placed in temporary accommodation by the respondent local authority. She refused a written offer of accommodation, preferring an area near her children's schools and family. The authority notified her under section 193(7) of the Housing Act 1986 that it regarded its duty as discharged. Her section 202 review failed, and HHJ Cox dismissed her statutory appeal on a point of law on 14 September 2001. She renewed an application for permission to appeal, arguing that she had legitimate expectations of a further pre-review suitability decision and a later opportunity to accept the offer.

Decision

1. Lord Justice Simon Brown refused the renewed application for permission to appeal. Lord Justice Laws entirely agreed. The court considered that no appeal could succeed.
2. The applicant's first argument concerned the reasons requested for refusing the accommodation. The request for reasons did not imply that the local authority would reconsider suitability before the statutory review. It was sufficient that the reasons were sought for the purposes of the process. The statutory framework did not envisage an additional stage between refusal of the offer and the section 202 review. Introducing such a stage would create uncertainty in a process for which the statute had provided its own timetable.
3. The second argument also failed. The applicant had been clearly informed that the authority would make only one offer, that she could seek a review whether she accepted or refused it, and that a refusal could not be withdrawn. Those circumstances did not give rise to a legitimate expectation of a later opportunity to accept the accommodation.
4. The County Court judge was plainly right to reject the proposed challenge. The renewed application was therefore refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Mantell LJ initially refused permission to appeal on the documents. On renewal, the court refused permission in [2002] EWCA Civ 105.
2. Lambeth County Court: HHJ Cox dismissed the applicant's statutory appeal on a point of law on 14 September 2001.
3. Local authority review: The authority's section 202 review upheld its earlier decision that its homelessness duty had been discharged.