Eren v London Borough of Haringey

In a homelessness review, the reviewing officer must decide the facts and exercise of discretion independently. The officer may consider an earlier housing authority’s file and decision concerning the same departure from accommodation, but must conduct a full and fair enquiry and reach personal conclusions. A decision letter is read as a whole in its practical context; an isolated phrase does not establish an error of law. An omitted item of evidence will justify reconsideration only where it is materially significant to the decision. On an appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996, the court addresses errors of law rather than re-making the homelessness decision.

Mrs Eren, separated from her husband and the primary carer of their young child, left a jointly rented former matrimonial home. Enfield had previously found her intentionally homeless. She later applied to Haringey, which made a similar finding under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996; the reviewing officer upheld it under section 202.

On a statutory appeal under section 204, Her Honour Judge Pearce allowed the appeal and ordered reconsideration. She considered that the reviewing officer had applied the wrong approach and had failed adequately to address evidence about the surrender of the tenancy. The central issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the reviewing officer had conducted an independent review, whether he could rely on Enfield’s file, and whether the omission was material.

Appeal allowed unanimously. Lady Justice Hallett gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Lawrence Collins and Lord Justice Carnwath agreeing.

1. Under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, a reviewing officer’s decision is at large on the facts and on the exercise of the statutory discretion. The officer must form personal conclusions after considering the relevant evidence. This accords with the principle identified in Mohammed v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2002] HLR 7.
2. A housing authority may inspect and rely upon the file and earlier enquiries of another authority concerning the same homelessness issue. It must, however, conduct its own full and fair enquiry. It cannot decide merely by repeating the earlier authority’s findings or by endorsing the reasonableness of those findings.
3. The reviewing officer’s letter had to be read as a whole and in its practical context. It was not a judgment or statute requiring close textual analysis. The isolated sentence relied upon by the lower court did not show that the officer had conducted a judicial-review-type exercise. The letter showed that he had considered the evidence, made his own credibility findings and applied the correct approach. The caution in Osmani v Camden LBC [2005] HLR 22 was applicable.
4. The question of who returned the keys was subsidiary and the letting agency’s letter provided no proof either way. Its omission from the decision letter was not sufficiently material to require re-determination. The core issue was whether domestic violence made departure necessary and whether it was reasonable to give up the accommodation. The lengthy delay in attempting to re-establish residence could support a finding of deliberate abandonment even if the surrender itself was not proved.
5. There was no error of law in the review decision or decision-making process under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996. The county court’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2007] EWCA Civ 409. Appeal allowed.
2. Edmonton County Court (Her Honour Judge Pearce), 20 July 2006: appeal from the Haringey review decision allowed and the matter ordered to be reconsidered.
3. London Borough of Haringey reviewing officer, 27 February 2006: review decision upheld the finding of intentional homelessness.
4. London Borough of Enfield, July 2004: an earlier homelessness application resulted in a finding of intentional homelessness; no review was requested.