Ahmed v Leicester City Council

Under section 193(7F) of the Housing Act 1996, suitability and the reasonableness of accepting an offer are separate questions. The authority must consider the applicant’s personal characteristics, needs, hopes and fears. It must then decide objectively whether a right-thinking housing authority could regard acceptance by that applicant as reasonable.

The assessment is made at the time of refusal. Later information may illuminate whether the applicant’s knowledge and belief were reasonable at that time. A genuine fear does not necessarily amount to a reasonable belief. Where the available evidence permits a right-thinking authority to find the fear objectively unreasonable, the authority may conclude that accepting the offer was reasonable.

The local authority owed the appellant, a Somali single mother with three children, the main housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. She refused a final offer of accommodation after encountering youths who threatened her family and the property. The authority decided that its duty had been discharged.

A reviewing officer accepted the appellant’s account and the inadequacy of the original enquiries, but obtained further evidence about harassment and anti-social behaviour. She concluded that the accommodation was suitable and reasonable for the appellant to accept. HHJ Mayor QC dismissed an appeal under section 204.

The Court of Appeal considered whether reasonableness had to be determined solely by reference to facts which the appellant knew or ought reasonably to have known when she refused the offer, and whether the reviewing officer’s conclusion was legally unreasonable.

1. Appeal dismissed. The reviewing officer applied the correct statutory test and reached a conclusion open to a right-thinking housing authority. Pill LJ gave the leading judgment. Arden and Lawrence Collins LJJ agreed.

2. Section 193(7F) of the Housing Act 1996 creates two distinct inquiries. The authority must first decide whether the accommodation is suitable. It must then decide whether it is reasonable for the particular applicant to accept it. The second inquiry is not rendered redundant by an objective finding of suitability: paras [14]–[18], [29].

3. The reasonableness inquiry takes account of the applicant’s personal characteristics, needs, hopes and fears. Having considered those individual matters, the authority applies an objective test: whether a right-thinking local housing authority would conclude that it was reasonable for this applicant to accept this accommodation. Slater v Lewisham LBC [2006] HLR 3 followed and applied: paras [15], [17]–[21], [27]–[29].

4. The relevant time is when the offer was refused. Evidence obtained later may be considered insofar as it illuminates the reasonableness of the applicant’s state of knowledge and belief at that time. This does not restrict the authority to the facts as the applicant understood, or ought to have understood, them. In a case concerning the objective risk of violence or racial harassment, the authority may assess all available evidence about past events and future risk: paras [18], [21], [27]–[29].

5. A belief may be genuine without being objectively reasonable. The reviewer took account of the appellant’s Somali origin, family circumstances, history of domestic violence and heightened fear of violence. The evidence about conditions in the area nevertheless entitled the authority to find that her fear, although genuine, was not reasonable and that acceptance of the offer would have been reasonable: paras [19]–[20], [31].

6. Although there is no general statutory obligation to consult while making review enquiries, fairness may sometimes require dialogue where issues arising during the review cannot otherwise be resolved fairly. The court did not decide whether further consultation was required here: paras [22]–[23], [30].

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appellant’s appeal was dismissed in [2007] EWCA Civ 843. The reviewing officer had applied the correct objective test under section 193(7F) of the Housing Act 1996.

2. Northampton County Court: HHJ Mayor QC dismissed the appellant’s section 204 appeal against the local authority’s review decision on 8 September 2006.

3. Leicester City Council: A reviewing officer upheld the decision that the final offer was suitable and reasonable to accept, and that refusal had discharged the authority’s housing duty.