Cramp v Hastings Borough Council

A housing authority must make the inquiries necessary to satisfy itself whether a homelessness duty is owed. The decision on what inquiries are necessary belongs to the authority, including the reviewing officer. A county court hearing a statutory appeal may interfere only where no reasonable authority could have regarded the omitted inquiry as unnecessary.

Medical evidence is relevant but does not transfer the priority-need decision to a medical specialist. The authority may assess vulnerability on the material available, including its own interview and the applicant’s representations. A second appeal may be permitted where correction of a material practice affecting the statutory scheme raises an important point of practice, notwithstanding the restrictive nature of CPR 52.13(2).

Two linked homelessness appeals concerned decisions that the applicants were not in priority need under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. In each case, the county court allowed the applicant’s appeal on a point of law and remitted the matter to the local authority.

In Mr Cramp’s case, the recorder held that Hastings should have obtained further psychiatric evidence after receiving a treating doctor’s inconclusive report. In Mr Phillips’s case, the judge held that Camden should have made further inquiries of a probation officer and of the applicant’s general practitioner. Hastings appealed. Camden sought permission for a second appeal. The central issue was whether the reviewing officers’ inquiries were legally insufficient.

1. The court unanimously allowed Hastings’s appeal. It granted Camden permission to bring a second appeal and allowed that appeal also. Lord Justice Brooke gave the reasons, with which Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Longmore agreed.

2. The statutory duty is to make such inquiries as are necessary. It is for the housing authority, and on review its senior reviewing officer, to decide what is necessary. A county court may quash that decision on a point of law only if no reasonable authority could have regarded the further inquiry as unnecessary. The court must not substitute its own assessment of the desirable extent of inquiry.

3. The Pereira vulnerability question did not require a psychiatric or other medical specialist to answer it. Medical material was relevant evidence, but did not bind the reviewing officer or displace her statutory decision-making role. In Mr Cramp’s case, the officer had considered the reports and interviewed him for 75 minutes. It was open to her not to await a definitive diagnosis or obtain further psychiatric evidence.

4. In Mr Phillips’s case, it was speculative to suppose that a probation officer would have provided material information. His solicitors had not asked Camden to consult such an officer or suggested that the general practitioner’s report was unreliable. It was therefore open to the reviewing officer not to make those further inquiries.

5. Uphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 60 supplied helpful but non-exhaustive guidance on second appeals. The restrictive jurisdiction should be applied flexibly. The need to correct an important tendency in county-court homelessness appeals to overlook the authority’s responsibility for necessary inquiries raised an important point of practice.

6. For appeals under section 204, the applicable procedure is CPR Part 52. New evidence should be confined to material needed to illuminate the legal issues or relief. Grounds must set the agenda, and appeal bundles must exclude documents unnecessary to the issues.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2005] EWCA Civ 1005, allowed Hastings’s appeal from the Hastings County Court. It also granted Camden permission for a second appeal and allowed its appeal from the Central London County Court.
• Hastings County Court — On 10 December 2004, Mr Recorder Digney QC allowed Mr Cramp’s section 204 appeal, quashed the review decision and remitted the matter to Hastings.
• Central London County Court — On 26 January 2005, Judge Levy QC allowed Mr Phillips’s section 204 appeal and remitted the matter to Camden.