Rowley v Rugby Borough Council

Under regulation 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999, further representations are required only where the reviewer considers that the original decision, or the manner in which it was made, contains a deficiency or irregularity of sufficient importance to procedural fairness, and remains minded to decide adversely. The reviewer makes the initial assessment, subject to a county court appeal on a point of law. Where applicants unequivocally accept the factual account and have opportunities to add information, the authority may proceed on that basis. A later assertion that they had no alternative but to leave does not itself establish a deficiency in the original decision. If regulation 8(2) is not engaged, failure to hold an oral hearing is not an error of law.

The appellant and her partner left rented accommodation in Kent and applied to Rugby Borough Council as homeless. The housing officer accepted that they were homeless and in priority need, but found them intentionally homeless under the Housing Act 1996 because they had voluntarily ended a tenancy without securing alternative accommodation. They had endorsed the Council’s written account of the facts and did not provide further information when invited.

On review, the decision was upheld without an oral hearing. The county court dismissed the appeal under section 204. The central issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the original decision contained a deficiency requiring the procedure in regulation 8(2), and whether the applicants’ signed acceptance could fairly be relied upon.

The Court of Appeal, in the judgment of Maurice Kay LJ with which Wall and Pill LJJ agreed, unanimously dismissed the appeal.

1. Section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 gives the county court jurisdiction on a point of law. That jurisdiction is essentially one of judicial review, as explained in Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2003] UKHL 5 [2003] 2 AC 430. The reviewer must initially determine whether regulation 8(2) is engaged, but that determination remains open to legal challenge.
2. The word deficiency in regulation 8(2) has a broad meaning. It means something lacking, but the omission must be sufficiently important to the fairness of the procedure to justify the additional safeguard. The court applied the approach in Hall v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2004] EWCA Civ 1740.
3. The applicants had endorsed the factual account put forward by the housing officer, which stated that the landlord had not served notice and that they had decided to leave. In the absence of manipulation or oppression, the authority was entitled to take that endorsement at face value. The applicants were twice given opportunities to provide further representations. Their later assertion that they had no alternative but to leave was not a case which the housing officer or reviewer was required to determine.
4. On the facts accepted by the applicants, the original decision was not deficient in reasoning and there was no unresolved factual dispute. Regulation 8(2) was therefore not activated. The refusal to provide a meeting or oral hearing disclosed no separate legal error. The accepted facts also supported the conclusion that the applicants had deliberately ceased occupying accommodation which was available and reasonable for them to continue occupying, within section 191 of the Housing Act 1996.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s appeal costs, subject to section 11 of the Access to Justice Act 1999, with detailed assessment under paragraph 4 of the Community Legal Services (Funding) Order 2000.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2007] EWCA Civ 483, the appeal was dismissed.
• Dudley County Court: HHJ Bellamy refused interim accommodation on 22 June. HHJ Pearce-Higgins QC dismissed the substantive appeal on 2 September.