Sahardid v London Borough of Camden

A statutory review of accommodation suitability must consider the facts known at the review date and apply the local authority’s published allocation scheme. The authority’s limited housing stock and financial constraints remain relevant, but they do not justify ignoring a material policy criterion. Eligibility for a larger property does not automatically make a smaller offer unsuitable; the reviewer must assess the policy and factual circumstances together. Failure to do so is an error of law. An unlawful decision may be upheld only where the same result was inevitable. Otherwise, the decision should be quashed and reconsidered.

The appellant was homeless and had priority need under the Housing Act 1996. Camden accepted that it owed her the housing duty but offered a one-bedroom flat. She sought a review, relying on her medical condition and the council’s allocation scheme. By the review date, her son had turned five, which under the scheme made her eligible for two-bedroom accommodation. The reviewing officer did not address that fact or the relevant policy. The County Court held that the review should consider facts existing at the review date but dismissed the appeal under section 204, treating the three-day difference as de minimis. The appeal concerned the proper review date, the effect of the policy omission, and whether relief should be refused because the outcome was inevitable.

The appeal was unanimously allowed. The decision dated 5 November 2003 was quashed, and Camden was required to conduct a fresh review. The appellant was awarded the costs of the appeal and the proceedings below.

1. Date of review. The reviewing officer had to consider the facts known at the date of the review, rather than confining the inquiry to the date of the original offer. That conclusion was supported by the statutory language and by the reasoning in Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2002] 1 AC 547 and the Court of Appeal decision in Mohamed [2001] QB 97. The omission of equivalent wording from the later regulations did not alter that duty.
2. Published allocation scheme. The law required Camden to allocate accommodation in accordance with its published scheme under section 167(8) of the Housing Act 1996. The reviewer therefore had to consider the appellant’s eligibility for two-bedroom accommodation when deciding whether the one-bedroom offer was suitable. The fact that the son was only three days over the five-year threshold could not be treated as de minimis, because the threshold had been chosen by Camden itself.
3. Scope of suitability review. Suitability remained primarily a question of fact for the local authority. Its limited housing stock and financial constraints could be considered, and eligibility for two bedrooms did not automatically make a one-bedroom offer unsuitable. Those principles did not excuse failure to address the council’s own policy and the relevant age fact.
4. Discretion to refuse relief. The court considered the principle in Ali v Newham LBC [2002] HLR 20 413 that an unlawful decision may be upheld where the same result was inevitable. The court was not satisfied that Camden would necessarily reach the same conclusion on a lawful, up-to-date review. The matter was therefore remitted for reconsideration.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2004] EWCA Civ 1485, unanimously allowed the appeal, quashed the review decision of 5 November 2003, and ordered a fresh review.
• Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Dean QC dismissed the section 204 appeal on 9 March 2004 and upheld the review decision.