Porteous v West Dorset District Council

A local housing authority may revisit and rescind its acceptance of the main housing duty where the decision resulted from a fundamental mistake about facts existing when it was made. The statutory circumstances in which that duty subsequently ceases do not prevent correction of such an original mistake.

Although the authority must make necessary inquiries under the Housing Act 1996, an applicant remains obliged to provide all relevant information. On a statutory review, however, homelessness must be determined from the circumstances existing at the review date. Accommodation remains available where the applicant then has at least permission to occupy it and can secure entry, even though a former tenancy has ended.

The appellant, a single parent with three children, applied to the respondent local housing authority for accommodation as a homeless person. The authority initially accepted that it owed the main housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. It later discovered that accommodation in Chiswick had remained available to her and rescinded its decision.

The authority upheld its revised decision on review under section 202. His Honour Judge Beashel dismissed an appeal to Weymouth County Court under section 204. The Court of Appeal granted permission for a second appeal and treated the hearing as the substantive appeal.

The issues were whether the authority could correct its original decision because it had been made under a fundamental mistake of fact, and whether accommodation remained available to the appellant at the date of the statutory review.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. A local housing authority may revisit and rescind an earlier acceptance of the duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 where that decision resulted from a fundamental mistake about facts existing at the time. The provisions specifying when an accepted duty subsequently ceases do not create an exhaustive bar against correcting an originally mistaken decision. The distinction between an original factual mistake and a later change of circumstances was material.
2. The reasoning in Crawley Borough Council v B was binding and apt to the case. Public law does not invariably prevent a homelessness decision from being revisited. To the extent that R v Southwark LBC, ex p Dagou established that an authority could not reinvestigate circumstances existing at the date of its original decision, that approach was rejected. The authorities concerning a later loss of priority need or other post-decision developments were distinguishable.
3. Section 184 imposes a duty upon the authority to make necessary inquiries. That duty does not relieve an applicant of the obligation to include all relevant information in the application. The judge's characterisation of the appellant's conduct as material non-disclosure was unnecessary, because neither party had acted in bad faith. The decisive matter was the fundamental factual mistake about the continuing availability of accommodation.
4. Under Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council (2001) UKHL 57, a reviewing authority must consider the applicant's circumstances as they exist at the review date. The County Court had addressed that date and had evidence upon which it could conclude that the Chiswick property remained available. Although the former tenancy had probably ended, the appellant had at least a licence to return, and the owner was prepared to permit and support her re-entry.
5. An appeal to the County Court under section 204 lies on a point of law only. The appellant therefore had to establish an error of law or an insufficient factual basis for the conclusion. The evidence supported the finding that she was not homeless under section 175 at the review date.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission for a second appeal was granted, the hearing was treated as the substantive appeal, and the appeal was dismissed by [2004] EWCA Civ 244.
2. Weymouth County Court: His Honour Judge Beashel dismissed the appellant's section 204 appeal on 4 December 2003. He held that the authority could revisit its original decision and that accommodation remained available at the review date.
3. Local authority review: On 8 September 2003 the respondent upheld its revised conclusion that the appellant was not homeless and that no housing duty was owed.