Taylor, R (on the application of) v Commission for Local Administration In England

Under Housing Act 1996, an applicant dissatisfied with a review decision, or whose review decision is not notified within the prescribed period, may appeal to the County Court on a point of law. The legislation does not require the authority to notify the applicant, at the expiry of that period and in the absence of a review decision, that an appeal right has arisen. A challenge to an ombudsman’s report cannot be used to obtain a fresh determination of the underlying homelessness decision where the report contains no legal error. The court must read such reports fairly and avoid attaching excessive significance to imprecise wording.

The claimant sought judicial review of part of a report by the Local Commissioner concerning alleged maladministration by Bridgnorth District Council in handling his homelessness application. The Council had decided that he was threatened with homelessness, not in priority need and intentionally homeless. He requested a review, but no statutory review was completed. The Commissioner found maladministration in the Council’s failure to act proactively concerning the review, but stated that advice about a County Court appeal would have followed a formal review. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the limited issue whether the report was flawed in addressing the failure to advise about the appeal right.

1. The application for judicial review failed. The challenge was confined to the Commissioner’s treatment of the Council’s failure to advise the claimant of a County Court appeal.

2. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 provides a statutory review procedure. Under section 204, an applicant may appeal to the County Court on a point of law if dissatisfied with the review decision or if no review decision is notified within the prescribed period. The court accepted that the County Court had power to extend the time for bringing an appeal.

3. There was no statutory requirement under the Act or the Regulations to tell an applicant, at the expiry of the 56-day period and in the absence of a review decision, that a right of appeal had arisen. To that extent, the Commissioner was correct not to criticise the Council.

4. The Commissioner’s statement that advice concerning an appeal would have become appropriate only after a formal review had not been shown to contain a material legal error. Reports of this kind should be read cautiously. The word appropriate might simply have meant that there was no legal obligation to give the advice.

5. In any event, the issue was academic. The Council had not treated the correspondence as a statutory review, but as a complaint. It could not properly be criticised for failing to advise of an appeal arising from failure to complete a review which it did not consider was being conducted. The claimant’s proper remedy for challenging the original decision was an appeal to the County Court, which could have considered whether a review had been requested and might have extended time.

6. The claimant could not use the judicial review challenge to paragraph 102 of the report as a means of obtaining a re-determination of the underlying homelessness decision. The application was dismissed. The claimant was ordered to pay £1,000 towards the Commissioner’s costs up to and including the permission hearing, and the Commissioner’s later publicly funded costs were subject to detailed assessment and could not be enforced without the court’s leave.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Crane J on limited grounds. The Administrative Court dismissed the substantive application.