Lewis v London Borough of Havering

When deciding whether to continue interim accommodation pending a statutory homelessness appeal, a local authority should assess the underlying decision’s merits broadly. That assessment may involve questions of fact and law. The authority need not analyse every appeal ground in detail, but should not disregard an available Notice of Appeal as a matter of principle. A notice may reveal factual errors, legal inconsistencies or new points. The issue was sufficiently arguable and important to justify permission to appeal.

Mr Russell Lewis’s homelessness application failed because the local authority decided that he was not in priority need. He appealed that decision and separately challenged the refusal to continue interim accommodation pending the statutory appeal.

The authority reconsidered its decision, referring to a three-factor approach derived from London Borough of Camden ex parte Mohammed. The Romford County Court upheld the refusal of temporary housing. The renewed application concerned whether the authority had been required to consider the grounds in the existing Notice of Appeal when assessing the merits of the original decision.

Application granted. The Court of Appeal granted the renewed application for permission to appeal. It did not determine the substantive homelessness appeal.

1. The decision letter had adopted a framework requiring consideration of the merits of the original housing decision, any new material or information supplied on review, and the applicant’s personal circumstances and the adverse consequences of refusing interim accommodation.
2. The expression merits of the case itself was capable of including questions of fact and law. The authority’s task was important and should not be undertaken casually, but it did not require an exhaustive evaluation of every ground in a Notice of Appeal.
3. The authority could not, as a matter of principle, turn a blind eye to an available Notice of Appeal. The notice might merely repeat unsuccessful arguments, but it might also identify a blatant inconsistency, an erroneous factual finding or a new point relevant to the underlying decision.
4. The reasoning previously relied on for refusing permission was therefore insufficient. The decision in Frances v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council [2003] 1 WLR 0248 did not clearly address the issue. The relevant observations might have been directed to the Notice of Appeal, so that decision could not be treated as establishing that such a notice was irrelevant.
5. Whether the authority had in fact considered the Notice of Appeal remained arguable. The letter referred to the underlying decisions but not expressly to the notice. The effect of later evidence suggesting that it had been considered, and whether supplementary reasons could cure an omission, were left for the substantive appeal.

The issue was sufficiently important to merit consideration by the Court of Appeal, even though the appeal might ultimately fail on a fair reading of the decision letter or the subsequent evidence. No formal order for expedition was made.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): on 17 November 2006, granted the renewed application for permission to appeal.
• Romford County Court: on 7 November 2006, HHJ Polden upheld the refusal of temporary housing pending the appeal against the homelessness decision.