Green & Anorv London Borough of Croydon

A housing authority's duty under the Housing Act 1996 s 184 is to make inquiries necessary in the circumstances. A reviewing officer may ordinarily rely on a possession order made by a competent court when its findings of rent arrears are supported by the available material. The officer need not conduct a fresh county-court-style investigation merely because some documents are equivocal. A challenge succeeds only where no reasonable authority could have decided that further inquiries were unnecessary. Whether an abnormal or extreme case might require the authority to go behind the court's decision was left open.

The appellants were tenants whose possession was ordered after alleged rent arrears calculated at £700 per month, although the tenancy agreement and parts of the possession proceedings referred to £650. Croydon subsequently decided that they were intentionally homeless because they had failed to pay rent.

The appellants sought a review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996. The review confirmed the decision, and Mr Recorder Spon-Smith dismissed their statutory appeal under section 204 in Wandsworth County Court. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the reviewing officer had been required to investigate afresh the correct rent despite the possession order and its implied findings.

Mann J gave the substantive judgment. Lord Justice Jacob and Lord Justice Mummery agreed.

1. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
2. Section 184(1) of the Housing Act 1996 requires the authority to make the inquiries necessary to determine whether the applicant is eligible and what statutory duty is owed. The scope of necessary inquiry depends on the circumstances.
3. The reviewing officer decides what further inquiries are necessary. Following the approach in R v Royal Borough of Kensington ex p Bayani (1990) 22 HLR 406 and Cramp v Hastings BC [2005] 4 All ER 1014, the decision is lawful unless no reasonable authority could have decided that further inquiry was unnecessary on the material available.
4. In this case, the possession order was made by a competent court and was consistent with rent of £700 and substantial arrears. That conclusion was supported by rent statements, receipts, housing-benefit material, information from the landlord's agents and other evidence. The conflicting documents were equivocal. The reviewing officer was therefore entitled to rely on the court's decision and was not required to undertake a county-court-style investigation, or to inquire of the district judge or landlord afresh.
5. The court did not decide whether an abnormal or extreme case might require a housing authority to go behind a possession decision. The broader question was left for another case.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the appeal from the county court decision, with costs.
• Wandsworth County Court: Mr Recorder Spon-Smith dismissed the appeal from Croydon's review decision on 13 March 2007.
• London Borough of Croydon review: The authority confirmed its decision that the appellants were intentionally homeless following a review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996.
• Possession proceedings: A possession order and money judgment were made on 4 January 2006.