Bantamagbari, R (on the application of) v Westminster

A notifying local authority’s decision that the statutory conditions for a homelessness referral are satisfied remains operative unless quashed or otherwise lawfully displaced. The notified authority cannot refuse the referral because it considers the decision flawed. Its remedy is judicial review, subject to the applicable time limit and the court’s discretion.

Where later material confirms the notifying authority’s conclusion on intentional homelessness, the court may decline to invalidate that conclusion. A notified authority that unlawfully refuses responsibility may be ordered to determine the application under the Housing Act 1996.

The claimant applied to Southwark as a homeless person. Southwark accepted that the conditions for the main housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 were met, but referred the case to Westminster under section 198 because of the claimant’s local connections.

Westminster refused the referral, contending that Southwark had failed properly to investigate whether the claimant had become intentionally homeless. The claimant sought judicial review of Westminster’s refusal. The central issues were whether Westminster could decline to act on the referral without first obtaining a quashing order against Southwark’s decision, and whether Southwark’s decision remained valid in light of further evidence.

1. Claim allowed. Westminster acted unlawfully in refusing to accept responsibility for the claimant under the Housing Act 1996. It was required to determine the application in compliance with Part VII of the Act.
2. Under the statutory scheme, the notifying authority decides whether the conditions giving rise to the section 193 duty are satisfied. This included Southwark’s decision that it was not satisfied that the claimant had become homeless intentionally: R v Slough Borough Council, ex parte London Borough of Ealing [1981] QB 801.
3. Westminster could not use its refusal of the referral as a back-door challenge to Southwark’s decision. The proper route was judicial review of Southwark’s decision. The passage in R v Newham London Borough Council, ex parte Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [1991] 1 WLR 1032 did not authorise the notified authority to ignore a referral merely because the notifying authority’s decision was arguably unlawful. In that case the challenge occurred through judicial review proceedings.
4. Even if a challenge to Southwark’s decision had been entertained, the court would have declined to invalidate it. By June 2002, the landlord’s letter and related material provided ample support for the conclusion that the claimant was not intentionally homeless. The material meant that no reasonable decision-maker could be satisfied that he had become intentionally homeless.
5. Westminster’s delay was fatal to any attempt to obtain an extension of time for judicial review. The order required Westminster to determine the application lawfully, including the issues arising under section 200. The claimant’s costs were payable by Westminster. No order for costs was made between Westminster and Southwark.

This was a first-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. The judgment does not state any prior appellate decision.