Ali v London Borough of Haringey

On a second appeal from a decision under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996, permission may be granted only where the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or there is another compelling reason for hearing it. Such an appeal is confined to points of law and cannot reopen factual findings. Disputes about an applicant’s understanding of a housing offer, its suitability, and the consequences of refusal remain factual unless they disclose legal error. A request for an interpreter adjournment is determined by fairness and necessity in all the circumstances, including timing, practical availability, ability to communicate, and whether the case can be presented coherently.

Mrs Ali sought permission to appeal an order of the Edmonton County Court dated 17 July 2007. The County Court had dismissed her appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against a review decision under section 202. The review decision found her intentionally homeless under section 191 after she refused suitable accommodation at 72 Morley Avenue, having been warned that refusal would end the housing duty. The County Court upheld findings concerning her understanding of the offer, its suitability, and the reasonableness of continuing to occupy her existing accommodation. Mrs Ali challenged those factual findings and sought an adjournment for an interpreter. The central issues were whether an adjournment was fair and necessary, and whether the proposed second appeal raised a point of law or otherwise satisfied the permission threshold.

Application refused. The court also refused the requested adjournment for an interpreter.

1. The fairness and necessity of an adjournment had to be assessed in all the circumstances. Mrs Ali had not requested an interpreter before the hearing, the court could not practically provide one that day, and she was able to understand and communicate sufficiently in English. With assistance from her written grounds and the PSU representative, she could present her case coherently.
2. The County Court proceedings concerned an appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996, which was limited to points of law. The Court of Appeal could not reopen findings of fact. The findings that Mrs Ali understood the warning concerning 72 Morley Avenue, that the accommodation was suitable, and that it was reasonable for her to continue occupying her existing accommodation disclosed no arguable legal error. The same essential factual issue arose under section 193(5).
3. Because the proposed appeal was a second appeal, rule 52.13 of the Civil Procedure Rules required an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it. Mrs Ali’s grounds challenged the facts and did not satisfy either criterion. The importance of the matter to her personally did not establish the necessary compelling reason.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) On 6 February 2008, the court refused an adjournment and refused permission for a second appeal: [2008] EWCA Civ 132.
2. Edmonton County Court HHJ Riddell dismissed Mrs Ali’s section 204 appeal and upheld the review decision that she was intentionally homeless.