Rowley v Rugby Borough Council

On a renewed application for permission to appeal in a homelessness case, an applicant may raise an arguable challenge to the lawfulness of the authority’s review process. Where a reviewer is minded to decide against an applicant after identifying a deficiency or irregularity, The Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 require notification of the proposed decision and reasons, with an opportunity for representations. The scope of that obligation, and whether the authority’s view that no deficiency existed was reasonable, were arguable issues. A local authority’s failure to put material adverse information to the applicant may also be relevant to the validity of the review decision. The court granted permission without deciding the eventual merits.

The appellant had left rented accommodation after saying that her landlord wanted the property vacated and then applied to Rugby Borough Council as homeless. The council decided under section 184 of The Housing Act 1996 that she was intentionally homeless. On review under section 202, it maintained that decision, relying in part on information attributed to the landlord and an alleged notice to quit.

The County Court dismissed her appeal. A paper application for permission to appeal was then refused by Neuberger LJ. On renewal, the Court of Appeal considered arguable issues concerning investigation of the landlord’s conduct, regulation 8(2) of The Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999, the absence of an interview, and signed statements obtained from unrepresented applicants.

1. Permission granted. The renewed application raised arguable points worthy of consideration and satisfied the requirements for a second appeal. The court stressed that it was not deciding that the proposed grounds would succeed.
2. The applicant’s account that the landlord had wanted the property vacated raised an arguable issue as to whether the authority and the first-instance judge had adequately addressed the need to investigate that contention and consider its effect on whether it was reasonable for the applicant to remain. The issue could bear on whether the applicant became intentionally homeless under section 184 of The Housing Act 1996.
3. It was arguable that, where the reviewer considered there to be a deficiency or irregularity but was nevertheless minded to make a decision adverse to the applicant, regulation 8(2) required proper notification of the reasons and an opportunity to make oral or written representations. The court identified as arguable whether the authority’s conclusion that there was no deficiency was itself open to challenge on an objective standard of reasonableness.
4. The applicant also had arguable grounds that the review decision under section 202 of The Housing Act 1996 was invalid because material information obtained from the landlord had not been put to her, and because she had allegedly been denied an interview which might have supplied further information. The legal basis and procedural effect of taking signed statements from unrepresented applicants were also proper matters for consideration on appeal.
5. The reference in the review decision to a notice to quit did not resolve the issue. It instead highlighted the arguable need to put the landlord’s contrary information to the applicant before preferring it to her account.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 23 November 2006, the renewed application for permission to appeal was granted. The court stated that the proposed points were arguable and worthy of consideration, without determining their merits.
• Dudley County Court: HHJ Pearce-Higgins QC dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the homelessness decision.
• Paper permission decision: Neuberger LJ dismissed the initial application for permission to appeal. This Court of Appeal decision concerned the renewed application.