Calgin, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Enfield

A local housing authority may lawfully use an out-of-area homelessness policy where, on a proper evidential basis, local accommodation is not reasonably practicable. Cost is relevant, although it cannot justify accommodation below the statutory standard of suitability. The authority must give proper weight to the preference for accommodation in its district and should keep the position under general review as availability and demand change. It need not continually reassess whether another property would be a better fit once suitable accommodation has been provided, unless the actual period of occupation makes it unsuitable. A homelessness strategy need not be formally amended for every operational policy change.

The claimant sought judicial review of the defendant local housing authority’s out-of-area homelessness policy and its decision to provide his family with accommodation in Smethwick, Birmingham. The authority had accepted that it owed the household the statutory housing duty and had upheld the accommodation’s suitability on review.

The claimant argued that the policy gave excessive weight to cost, failed to reflect the duty to secure accommodation in the authority’s district, was inconsistent with the homelessness strategy required by the Homelessness Act 2002, and had been applied unfairly and irrationally. An appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 had been stayed so that the policy’s legality could be determined by the Administrative Court.

1. The claim was dismissed. The out-of-area policy was not unlawful. The duty in section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 is free-standing, but the question whether local accommodation is reasonably practicable is initially for the authority. The court may intervene only on ordinary public-law grounds, applying the high threshold reflected in R v Hillingdon London Borough Council ex parte Pulhofer [1886] AC 484.
2. Cost is a relevant consideration when assessing reasonable practicability. The statutory context includes severe pressure on housing stock, the need to provide a range of suitable accommodation, and limited public resources. Cost cannot justify accommodation below the minimum standard of suitability. The policy was supported by evidence of shortage and savings and was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
3. The policy’s criteria should have stated more clearly that accommodation in the borough should be used so far as reasonably practicable, or normally where suitable accommodation was available unless local provision was not reasonably practicable. That defect did not justify relief because the policy read as a whole recognised the section 208 duty and the authority had applied it properly.
4. Suitable accommodation need not be continually reassessed merely to identify a better alternative. However, suitability may change if the actual period of occupation exceeds what was anticipated. The authority should also keep under general review whether changing availability and demand make it reasonably practicable to return households to the borough.
5. The out-of-area policy did not modify the homelessness strategy. The Homelessness Act 2002 did not require every operational variation to be inserted into the strategy or subjected to the statutory consultation procedure. The policy was consistent with the existing strategy and represented detail rather than a strategic change.
6. The review procedure afforded a proper opportunity to make representations. The review panel considered the family’s physical and social needs and was entitled to find the Birmingham accommodation suitable. Following Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2001] UKHL 57, [2002] 1 AC 547, suitability had to be assessed using information available at the review date. That requirement was met. The panel’s failure to reconsider the section 208 issue afresh did not invalidate the suitability decision because the two duties, though related, are distinct.

The judgment records that an appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 was stayed by Edmonton County Court to allow the claimant to seek judicial review of the policy and related decisions. The Administrative Court determined all issues.