Lomotey v London Borough Of Enfield

A homelessness review is an administrative decision which must be reached fairly and in accordance with natural justice. The applicant must have the substance of any adverse point put to them and a fair opportunity to answer it. The authority need not repeat matters already fairly raised, or provide a further interview merely because its notes do not record every detail. Where an applicant’s own account supplies the material facts, and alleged collusion has been squarely discussed, reliance on those facts is not procedurally unfair. The review panel may also rely on the applicant’s failure to include a potential household member on the homelessness application where the evidence shows that the applicant was asked about that person and chose not to include them.

Naomi Lomotey appealed to the Edmonton County Court under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against a review-panel decision confirming that she was intentionally homeless. The panel concluded that accommodation in a jointly acquired flat remained available to her and that she had colluded with her brother in transferring her interest and accepting a notice to quit so that she could obtain housing assistance.

The county court judge held that the authority should have explored whether Ms Lomotey wished to occupy the accommodation with the father of her children and should have given her a further opportunity to answer the alleged collusion. The authority appealed, raising the scope of the review procedure and whether the process had been unfair. The central issue was whether the panel relied on adverse matters which had not been fairly put to Ms Lomotey.

1. Appeal allowed. The county court judgment was reversed. The order for reconsideration by the housing authority was set aside. Costs were awarded under section 11(1) of the Access to Justice Act, with the respondent’s liability assessed as nil.
2. Regulation 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedure) Regulations 1999 did not apply. The review panel had not considered that there was a deficiency or irregularity in the original decision or in the manner in which it was made.
3. The review-panel decision under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 was an administrative decision which had to be reached by a fair procedure complying with natural justice. The rules of natural justice required the substance of an adverse point to be put to the applicant, with a fair opportunity to answer it. The notes of local-authority officers were not transcripts and had to be approached with caution when relied upon to show that a matter had not been raised.
4. The allegation of collusion had been put squarely to Ms Lomotey in two interviews. Her own account supplied the material facts, and she did not challenge them. The review panel was therefore entitled to rely on that material without repeating the allegation or providing a further interview.
5. As to Mr Whyte, the panel was entitled to rely on Ms Lomotey’s failure to include him on her homelessness application, despite being asked whether she wished to do so. The evidence that she had treated the relationship as ended meant that the procedure was not unfair.
6. Hobbs v London Borough of Sutton (1993) 26 HLR 132 supported the conclusion that an authority need not recall an applicant for a further interview where the critical matters had already been put. Robinson v Brent LBC (1998) 31 HLR 1015 was distinguishable because the present case involved no comparable reliance on an unnotified admission.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On appeal from the Edmonton County Court, the appeal was allowed and the county court judgment was reversed: [2004] EWCA Civ 627.
• Edmonton County Court: Her Honour Judge Bevington held that the review process was procedurally unfair and directed the London Borough of Enfield to reconsider its decision.