Cramp v Hastings Borough Council

A housing authority determines what inquiries are necessary to decide a homelessness application. A county court may interfere for insufficient inquiry only where no reasonable authority could have regarded the omitted inquiry as unnecessary. The possibility that further information would have been helpful is insufficient. A reviewing officer may assess vulnerability from the available evidence without obtaining a definitive psychiatric diagnosis. Judicial restraint is particularly appropriate where further inquiries were neither requested during the internal review nor obviously required.

A tendency to exceed these limits may raise an important point of practice justifying a second appeal. On a statutory homelessness appeal, additional evidence must be controlled, grounds formulated promptly and bundles confined to relevant documents.

Two homelessness matters were heard together. James Cramp applied to Hastings Borough Council after his mother decided to sell the home where he lived. He relied on physical problems, substance dependence and possible mental illness. A senior reviewing officer upheld the finding that he lacked priority need. Mr Recorder Digney QC allowed his appeal, holding that further psychiatric inquiries were necessary, and remitted the application to the council.

Rainbow Phillips applied to the London Borough of Camden following the breakdown of his relationship. His circumstances included serious childhood burns, earlier psychological difficulties and a recent custodial sentence. Camden's reviewing officer upheld the finding that he lacked priority need. Judge Levy QC allowed his appeal because further inquiries should have been made of his probation officer and GP.

Hastings appealed with permission. Camden sought permission for a second appeal, with the substantive appeal to follow if permission was granted. The central questions were whether the county court judges had exceeded their powers when reviewing the sufficiency of inquiries, and whether Camden's proposed appeal satisfied the second appeal threshold.

Hastings' appeal was allowed. Camden was granted permission to appeal, and its appeal was also allowed. Brooke LJ delivered the judgment, with which Arden and Longmore LJJ agreed.

1. Under the homelessness scheme in Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, Parliament entrusted the assessment of necessary inquiries to the housing authority and, on review, to a senior housing officer. The county court could intervene on a point of law only where no reasonable council could have failed to regard the proposed further inquiries as necessary. It could not substitute its own assessment of what information would have been useful. The principles in R v Nottingham City Council ex p Costello and R v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ex p Bayani governed that inquiry.

2. A vulnerability assessment required consideration of whether inability to fend for oneself while homeless would cause injury or detriment beyond that suffered by an ordinary homeless person able to cope. The reviewing officer in Mr Cramp's case could answer that question from the reports and her lengthy interview. She could assess vulnerability without awaiting a confident diagnosis following recovery from drug dependence. The recorder erred in treating the question identified in R v Camden LBC v Pereira as one which only a psychiatrist could answer.

3. In Mr Phillips's case, the suggested benefit of consulting a probation officer was speculative. Neither possible helpfulness nor the possibility of additional information established unlawful insufficiency of inquiry. His solicitors had not requested those inquiries or challenged the GP's ability to report. The full internal review procedure reinforced the need for judicial restraint where an omitted inquiry had neither been requested nor been obviously necessary.

4. Camden's appeal raised an important point of practice under CPR 52.13(2)(a). The two cases disclosed a worrying tendency to overlook the limits of judicial intervention. The guidance in Uphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd was helpful but expressly non-exhaustive. In observations extending beyond the ground on which permission was granted, the court emphasised flexibility according to the provenance of an appeal and the practical operation of the statutory scheme.

5. By way of procedural guidance, section 204 appeals were governed by CPR Part 52. Additional evidence should be limited to material necessary to illuminate the points of law or appropriate relief. Grounds should identify the appeal's agenda promptly. Bundles should contain only necessary documents, exclude extraneous material and carry the required solicitor's certificate.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2005] EWCA Civ 1005 , allowed Hastings' appeal and granted Camden permission for a second appeal, which was also allowed. Both county court judgments were overturned.
• Hastings County Court: On 10 December 2004, Mr Recorder Digney QC allowed Mr Cramp's appeal against the reviewing officer's decision and remitted the matter to Hastings Borough Council.
• Central London County Court: On 26 January 2005, Judge Levy QC allowed Mr Phillips's appeal against Camden's reviewing officer's decision and made a similar remittal order.
• Administrative reviews: Senior officers of Hastings and Camden had upheld the original decisions that the respective applicants lacked priority need.