Gentle v London Borough of Wandsworth

On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal interferes only where the decision below is so plainly wrong, and so likely to cause serious injustice, that there is a compelling reason to intervene. A possible procedural irregularity in a homelessness review does not automatically justify a second appeal. The court must consider whether the applicant has actually suffered injustice. Where the reviewing officer had the relevant medical evidence and fully considered the case, a failure to identify a possible defect in the original reasons, or to notify the applicant under regulation 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999, did not satisfy that stringent threshold.

The applicant challenged a decision of Wandsworth London Borough Council that she was not in priority need for housing assistance under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. The council’s reviewing officer upheld that decision under section 202. The applicant appealed to the County Court under section 204 on a point of law, alleging procedural unfairness arising from the original decision’s failure expressly to refer to medical reports and the reviewer’s failure to notify her under regulation 8(2).

Her Honour Judge Knowles rejected the challenge. The present matter was a renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal. The central issue was whether any procedural irregularity was sufficiently serious, and had caused sufficient injustice, to amount to a compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to entertain the appeal.

1. Application refused. The court applied the second-appeal threshold in section 55(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 and CPR 52.13. Permission could be granted only if the proposed appeal raised an important point of principle or practice, or if there was another compelling reason for the court to entertain it.
2. The pursued ground concerned the reviewer’s alleged failure to identify a deficiency or irregularity in the original homelessness decision and to give the notification required by regulation 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999. The court accepted, for the purpose of the application, that the omission might constitute a procedural irregularity.
3. The original decision letter was open to criticism because it did not expressly refer to the medical reports. Nevertheless, the reviewing officer had the relevant medical evidence, referred to Miss Daly’s report and to the council medical adviser’s recommendation, and gave full reasons for affirming the decision. The applicant’s case had therefore been fully considered on the medical evidence by the time of the review.
4. The applicable question on a second appeal was not whether the County Court judge’s reasoning was open to criticism. It was whether something had gone so plainly wrong that an injustice required correction. The reviewing officer, the County Court judge and May LJ had not identified the alleged defect, and there was no reason to think that the applicant had actually suffered injustice. The stringent compelling-reason requirement was not met.
5. The court did not determine definitively whether the original letter was defective or whether regulation 8(2) had been breached. It refused the renewed application and made no further order.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal was refused because no compelling reason to entertain it was shown.
• Wandsworth County Court: Her Honour Judge Knowles rejected the applicant’s appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 from the council’s review decision.