Berhane v Lambeth

A statutory appeal on a point of law must provide effective access to the court. A county court may adjourn a housing appeal to avoid duplicated proceedings or inconsistent outcomes, but the adjournment must not make the appeal dependent on an indefinite or improperly delayed referral process between local authorities. The statutory arbitration arrangements do not remove or suspend the applicant’s independent right of appeal under Housing Act 1996, section 204. Local authorities must progress referrals and referee appointments promptly, keep the applicant reasonably informed, and comply with the timetable in the Homelessness Code of Guidance.

The claimant appealed against two orders of HHJ Birtles adjourning her appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996. The appeal concerned Lambeth’s decision to refer her homelessness application to Croydon on the asserted ground that she had a local connection there. The county court adjourned the appeal pending resolution of the dispute between Lambeth and Croydon under the statutory referral arrangements.

The adjournment became indefinite because the authorities did not promptly appoint a referee. Permission to appeal was granted on the basis that the orders deprived the claimant of effective access to determination of her section 204 appeal. Lambeth later conceded a duty to house her, but she continued the appeal so that the legal issue could be addressed.

1. Appeal allowed in substance. The orders adjourning the section 204 appeal indefinitely, or until completion of the statutory referral process, could not stand. The claimant was awarded her costs up to 20 July 2007, to be assessed if not agreed.
2. Sections 202 and 204 of the Housing Act 1996 give an applicant an independent right to seek a review and then appeal to the county court on a point of law. The existence of a dispute between two housing authorities does not deprive the applicant of that right. Section 204 expressly provides access to the court and permits the court to confirm, quash or vary the decision.
3. An adjournment may be appropriate to avoid duplicated costs or conflicting decisions. It must, however, be exercised consistently with the applicant’s statutory right of access. The referral process must not become an indefinite period in which the applicant is left without a determination or adequate information.
4. Where the authorities cannot agree on a referee, the notifying authority must request appointment by the Local Government Association within the period specified by annex 18 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance. Lambeth’s failure to take that step for approximately 18 months was inconsistent with the statutory scheme and the guidance.
5. The statutory framework and guidance contemplated that referrals would be dealt with promptly, that referee decisions would be reached as quickly as possible, and that the applicant would be kept reasonably informed. The claimant was not a party to the inter-authority dispute and could not protect her own position within that process, making her section 204 appeal particularly important.
6. Although the appeal had become partly academic after Lambeth conceded a duty to house the claimant, it was appropriate to determine it because the circumstances exposed a serious risk that adjournments and delayed referrals could undermine statutory rights.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) — Permission to appeal was granted by Royce J on 12 June 2007. Mr Justice Eady considered the appeal from HHJ Birtles’s orders of 3 and 28 November 2006 and held that the adjournment arrangements had unlawfully deprived the claimant of effective access to determination of her section 204 appeal.
• County Court — HHJ Birtles adjourned the section 204 appeal pending the outcome of the statutory referral process between Lambeth and Croydon, and subsequently adjourned it generally.