Zaher v City of Westminster

Under the Housing Act 1996, the duty to secure suitable accommodation is continuing during the relevant period. Acceptance of emergency accommodation does not necessarily discharge the duty permanently where the accommodation later becomes unsuitable or circumstances materially change.

An authority must reconsider suitability where there has been a substantial change of circumstances, or circumstances have developed materially differently from what was originally expected. It must not impose an unlawful procedural fetter by requiring a managing organisation to determine whether a transfer request may be considered. A decision based on an incomplete or cursory assessment is liable to be quashed.

The claimant and his family had been provided with temporary accommodation outside Westminster after their former home was destroyed. He later asked Westminster to transfer the family, relying on the effect of the accommodation on family welfare, schooling and employment.

Westminster declined to consider a transfer unless the accommodation manager first referred the case and also concluded that there were insufficient social grounds. It did not conduct the requested statutory review. The claimant sought judicial review, raising both the court’s jurisdiction despite the statutory appeal route and the extent of Westminster’s continuing duty to provide suitable accommodation.

1. Jurisdiction. Although section 204 provided a statutory appeal route on a point of law, Westminster’s complete failure to respond to the request for review and its failure to explain the proposed procedural route justified the court’s refusal to decline jurisdiction. The court therefore exercised its residual discretion to entertain the judicial review (paras [15]–[25]).
2. Continuing duty. The duty under sections 193 and 206 to secure the availability of suitable accommodation was not discharged once and for all when the claimant accepted short-term emergency accommodation. Suitability may depend on the expected duration of occupation and may change over time. The alternative analysis based on sections 175(3) and 177 was rejected as an artificial way of treating the claimant as homeless within his own home (paras [26]–[29]).
3. Threshold for reconsideration. An authority is not obliged to reconsider every complaint that merely disguises an impermissible challenge to the original offer. There must ordinarily be a substantial change of circumstances, or circumstances must have developed materially differently from what was initially expected (para [29]).
4. Decision invalid. Westminster was entitled to reconsider the claimant’s circumstances, but its letter unlawfully appeared to make referral by Eurolets a precondition to consideration. That was an unwarranted fetter on its statutory discretion. The decision may also have involved an incomplete and cursory examination of the matters relied upon by the claimant (paras [30]–[31]).
5. The decision of 14 June 2002 was quashed and Westminster was directed to reconsider the suitability of the accommodation. No view was expressed on the outcome of that reconsideration. Permission was granted and consequential costs orders were made (paras [32], [35]–[38]).