Anas (R) (on the application of) v Westminster City Council

A local housing authority may remove an applicant from its housing register where it reasonably regards refusal of suitable accommodation as unreasonable, but the power must not be exercised arbitrarily. Suitability does not require accommodation to be ideal for an applicant with unusually demanding needs. The question whether refusal was unreasonable is objective, not subjective. On an application for permission to seek judicial review, the applicant must show an arguable case that the reviewing officer’s decision was so flawed as to be unlawful. A conscientious assessment of serious medical and psychological difficulties did not, on these facts, infringe Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The applicant sought permission to appeal from an order of Pitchford J in the Administrative Court dated 10 July 2002, which refused permission to apply for judicial review. The challenge concerned a review under section 164 of the Housing Act 1996 of the decision to remove the applicant from the housing register after he refused a two-bedroom ground-floor flat.

He relied on physical and mental health conditions, mobility difficulties, and the importance of living near his support community. The central issues were whether the reviewing officer had unlawfully treated the accommodation as suitable, whether the refusal was unreasonable, whether later material could be considered, and whether the decision engaged Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lord Justice Robert Walker refused permission to appeal.

1. The statutory framework was correctly understood. Under section 163(5) of the Housing Act 1996, a local housing authority has power to remove a person from its housing register if it thinks fit. That power must not be exercised arbitrarily. An unreasonable refusal of suitable accommodation may provide sufficient justification under the authority’s policy.
2. Rights formerly arising under the Housing Act 1985 were channelled through the housing register maintained under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996. Both the reviewing officer and Pitchford J directed themselves correctly on that statutory interaction.
3. The relevant question on judicial review was not whether the court would itself have made the housing decision. The applicant had to show an arguable case that the reviewing officer’s decision was so flawed as to be unlawful. The decision letter showed an open-minded, conscientious and thorough consideration of the applicant’s medical, psychological, mobility and support needs.
4. The suitability of accommodation, and whether refusal was unreasonable, had to be assessed objectively rather than subjectively. Accommodation could be suitable even though it was not ideal for an applicant with particularly demanding requirements. The authority was entitled to take account of limited housing stock, transport options and the availability of assistance.
5. Letters and other material produced after the statutory review had been completed formed no part of the decision-making process and could not establish an error in that decision. The Article 3 ground was hopeless: the authority’s conscientious response to the applicant’s serious difficulties did not amount to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment.

The application was dismissed. Order: permission to appeal refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 21 August 2002, the court refused permission to appeal from the Administrative Court’s order of Pitchford J dated 10 July 2002, which had refused permission to apply for judicial review. The operative order was permission to appeal refused: [2002] EWCA Civ 156.