Hijazi v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

A reviewing housing authority may provide later evidence identifying material considered and elucidating its stated reasons. The evidence must confirm or clarify the original reasoning rather than fundamentally alter or contradict it.

Reasons are sufficient where they disclose clearly why the authority reached its conclusion, including by addressing a material issue implicitly. An omission to name a medical report is not necessarily fatal where the decision already contains the essential reasoning for rejecting its unsupported conclusion.

The authority need make only those further inquiries necessary to reach its decision. A failure to seek clarification is lawful where the existing evidence permits a reasonable conclusion and the additional material gives no sufficient reason to doubt it.

The Council decided on review that the appellant had become intentionally homeless by failing to pay rent and claim housing benefit. It concluded that his mental condition had not deprived him of the capacity to manage his affairs during the period preceding his eviction.

The appellant appealed under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996. The county court admitted a later statement from the review officer which confirmed that he had considered a psychiatrist's report and explained why he regarded it as immaterial. The county court dismissed the appeal.

The appellant challenged the statement's admissibility, the adequacy of the reasons given for rejecting the psychiatric opinion, and the Council's failure to seek clarification from the psychiatrist.

1. Appeal dismissed. Dyson LJ delivered the leading judgment, with which Judge LJ agreed.
2. A decision-maker may give subsequent evidence identifying material taken into account. Such evidence does not ordinarily supplement the reasons. Even if characterised as supplementary, it may be admitted where it merely elucidates the original reasoning. Applying R v Westminster City Council, Ex p Ermakov [1996] 2 All ER 302, later evidence should clarify or confirm the stated reasons rather than fundamentally alter or contradict them. The county court was entitled to admit the review officer's statement.
3. The original decision letter contained clear and sufficient reasons. It showed that the officer assessed the appellant's capacity during the material period, when the rent ceased to be paid and before the eviction. He relied on the appellant's understanding of his rental responsibilities, his earlier ability to arrange payments, the support available from his partner and the officer's impression at interview. The letter implicitly addressed the effect of the appellant's depression and concluded that it had not deprived him of capacity during that period.
4. The letter should have identified Dr Browne's report and explained why its addendum was rejected. The later statement nevertheless supplied only elucidation. The report principally examined the appellant's condition after the eviction. Its addendum gave an unsupported conclusion about intentional homelessness without showing that the psychiatrist had investigated the appellant's capacity during the relevant earlier period. The officer was therefore entitled to regard it as adding no significant material.
5. The reasons in the later statement were adequate. The officer could reasonably conclude that the report neither addressed the relevant period nor separated the appellant's earlier condition from the substantial deterioration caused by eviction.
6. The Council was not required to seek clarification from Dr Browne. Its officer already had several medical reports and had reached a carefully reasoned conclusion about capacity during the relevant period. The appellant had not shown that every reasonable housing authority in that position would have regarded further inquiry as necessary.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed with costs. A public funding assessment of the appellant's costs was ordered.
2. Wandsworth County Court: Her Honour Judge Knowles admitted the review officer's explanatory statement and dismissed the appellant's appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996.
3. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: On review, the Council confirmed that the appellant was intentionally homeless because rent had not been paid and housing benefit had not been claimed.