Ahad v London Borough of Tower Hamlets

For a second appeal, permission requires an important point of principle or practice. Under the Housing Act 1996, suitability of an offered property and reasonableness of accepting it are distinct questions. Suitability is primarily objective. Reasonableness requires consideration of the applicant’s subjective views, assessed by asking whether a right-thinking housing authority would regard acceptance as reasonable. Relevant facts existing when the offer was made may need to be considered at review even if previously unknown to the authority, where they are raised at review. Household objections and threatened family consequences require consideration, but do not dictate the result. A fact-specific review which considers the household’s circumstances may be lawful. The application for permission was refused.

Mr Ahad, a homeless applicant owed a housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, refused a final accommodation offer made under Part 6. The Authority treated its duty under section 193(7) as discharged. On review, it concluded that the accommodation was suitable and that it was reasonable for Mr Ahad to accept it, despite his wife’s objections and his belief that acceptance might lead to separation.

The County Court upheld the Authority’s approach. Mr Ahad sought permission for a second appeal, arguing that the Authority had failed to consider the household’s characteristics and the consequences of disagreement within the family. The proposed appeal relied on the framework in Slater v London Borough of Lewisham [2006] EWCA Civ 394 and Ahmed v Leicester City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 843. The central issue was whether the facts raised an important point of principle or practice.

Application refused. Lord Justice Lawrence Collins held that the proposed second appeal did not raise an important point of principle or practice. The case was fact-specific.

1. For a second appeal, the applicant must identify an important point of principle or practice. A dispute about the evaluation of household circumstances will not satisfy that threshold merely because it concerns a recurring type of homelessness case.
2. Section 193(7F) of the Housing Act 1996, as explained in Slater v London Borough of Lewisham [2006] EWCA Civ 394, involves two distinct requirements. Suitability is primarily objective. Reasonableness of accepting the offer requires consideration of the applicant’s subjective views, by asking whether a right-thinking housing authority would regard acceptance as reasonable. The approach was applied in Ahmed v Leicester City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 843.
3. The Authority could be required to consider facts existing when the offer was made even if they were unknown to it at that time, provided that they were brought to its attention at the review stage. The reviewing officer had considered the relevant facts, including the wife’s objections and the asserted risk to the marriage.
4. The court did not establish a general rule that spouses must always present a united front, or that matrimonial disagreements can automatically be left to the family. It held that, on these facts, the review process and reasoning disclosed no legal flaw. The reviewing officer was entitled to conclude that the offer was suitable and that it was reasonable to expect acceptance, having regard to the information given before bidding, the lack of foundation for the objections, and the household circumstances.

Even if the proposed appeal had raised an important point of principle or practice, it would have failed on the merits. The formal order was: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 1 May 2008, Lord Justice Lawrence Collins refused permission to bring a second appeal.
• Central London Civil Justice Centre: Recorder Proudman QC decided the appeal on 17 October 2007, accepting that the Authority was entitled to reject the objections as a reasonable basis for refusing the accommodation offer.