Hackney v Sareen

Under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, a local housing authority’s decision not to refer a homelessness application under section 198 is not reviewable under section 202. The applicant therefore has no appeal to the County Court under section 204. Section 202(1)(b) concerns the duty owed under specified homelessness provisions, not which authority should bear it. Section 202(1)(c) concerns a decision to notify another authority and does not extend to non-notification. Section 184(2) gives the authority discretion, not a duty, to inquire into local connection elsewhere. A non-statutory reconsideration cannot enlarge the statutory review or appeal jurisdiction.

Mr Sareen applied to the London Borough of Hackney for homelessness assistance under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Hackney accepted that the main housing duty was owed but decided not to refer the application to the London Borough of Ealing. After solicitors supplied information about a possible local connection with Ealing, Hackney conducted a non-statutory reconsideration and again declined to refer the application.

The County Court allowed Mr Sareen’s appeal, holding that he had a right to a statutory review, that Hackney had been required to investigate local connection from the outset, and that the second decision was inadequately investigated. Hackney appealed. The central issues were whether the non-referral decision was reviewable under section 202, whether Hackney had a duty to investigate local connection, and whether the County Court had jurisdiction to quash the second decision.

The appeal was allowed unanimously. The order of the County Court was set aside, including the costs order.

1. Statutory review and appeal. The Court held that Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 provides a specific list of reviewable decisions under section 202(1). Section 202(1)(b) concerns the duty owed to the applicant under the specified homelessness provisions. It does not concern which authority should bear that duty. Section 202(1)(c) concerns a decision to notify another authority under section 198(1), and does not include a decision not to notify. The review rights under paragraphs (d) and (e) presuppose that notification and the referral process have occurred. Since Hackney had never decided to refer the application, there was no reviewable decision and consequently no appeal jurisdiction under section 204.
2. Local connection inquiries. Section 184(2) gives an authority a discretion to inquire into a possible local connection with another district. It imposes no duty to make such inquiries before deciding not to refer an application. The power to refer under section 198(1) is also discretionary. The County Court therefore had no jurisdiction to quash Hackney’s first decision for failure to investigate.
3. Later reconsideration. Hackney’s non-statutory reconsideration did not create a right of review or an appeal under section 204. Any separate challenge based on procedural unfairness would have to be brought, if available, by judicial review in the High Court. Lord Justice Auld expressed doubt that the detailed inquiries and reasons given by Hackney would have justified relief. The reasoning in Nipa Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 306 was applied as to the scope of section 204 appeals. Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow (1999) 32 HLR 335 was distinguished.

Mr Sareen was ordered to pay Hackney’s costs in the County Court and the Court of Appeal, subject to detailed assessment and determination under section 11 of the Access to Justice Act 1999.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal allowed; the County Court order of 21 June 2002, including the costs order, was set aside. [2003] EWCA Civ 351
2. Shoreditch County Court: His Honour Judge Cotran allowed the applicant’s appeal against Hackney’s refusal to review its non-referral decision and its subsequent non-statutory reconsideration, and quashed the relevant decisions.