Ali v Birmingham City Council

A local housing authority satisfies the duty to inform a homeless applicant under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 by conveying the required information in understandable English. Compliance does not depend on the applicant’s subjective understanding, and the word “inform” creates no general duty to provide an unsolicited translation.

The authority must provide reasonable help and make translation or interpretation services sufficiently available to applicants who need and request them. Fairness does not require routine translation where assistance is available, has previously been explained or used, and the applicant makes no request.

An initial oral refusal of accommodation is not necessarily irrevocable. The authority’s housing duty under section 193(5) ends only when it subsequently notifies the applicant that it regards the duty as discharged.

Birmingham City Council accepted that the appellant was owed the main homelessness duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. It offered him accommodation in an English-language letter which explained the consequences of refusal and his right to accept or refuse the offer while seeking a suitability review. The Somali-speaking appellant viewed and rejected the property, then requested a review of its suitability. The council upheld suitability and notified him that its duty was discharged.

Mr Recorder Tidbury dismissed an appeal from the review decision in Birmingham County Court on 19 December 2008. The appellant appealed with permission. The central issue was whether he had been “informed” for the purposes of section 193(5), despite his limited English and the absence of a Somali translation. The appeal also raised the effect of his initial refusal, procedural fairness, racial discrimination and the permissible scope of an appeal on a point of law.

1. Appeal dismissed. Sir Anthony May gave the judgment of the court. Wall and Moore-Bick LJJ agreed.
2. The words “inform” and “notify” in the Housing Act 1996 were substantially interchangeable, subject to a distinction of form. “Notify” required a notice possessing sufficient formality. “Inform” concerned the information which the notice contained. Section 193(5) required the statutory information to be conveyed in understandable English. Performance of that duty did not vary according to how far an individual recipient understood it. The offer letter therefore informed the appellant of everything required by statute and fairness.
3. The word “inform” did not itself impose a duty to translate the offer letter. Housing authorities should provide reasonable help and guidance and should make translation or other assistance sufficiently available to applicants who need and request it. The relevant codes and guidance did not require unsolicited translations whenever language difficulty was conceivable. The appellant had not requested help with the offer letter and had previously been told of, and used, translation services. The Recorder was entitled to conclude that the council had not acted unfairly.
4. An applicant’s initial oral rejection of offered accommodation did not necessarily and irrevocably terminate the offer. An applicant could reconsider and seek to accept it while it remained open for a short period. Under section 193(5), the authority’s duty ceased upon its subsequent notification that it regarded the duty as discharged, rather than upon the refusal alone. That notification occurred on 1 May 2008.
5. An appeal under section 204 was confined to a point of law. Although perversity could amount to an error of law, neither the County Court nor the Court of Appeal could replace properly supported factual findings with its own. The Recorder was entitled to find that translation or interpretation services had been offered and were available.
6. The discrimination ground failed. Translation or interpretation was available on request, and there was no evidential basis for concluding that the council’s practice placed Somali applicants at the alleged particular disadvantage. Focusing translation resources on applicants requesting assistance was not shown to be unlawful discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976. Article 6(3) of the Convention did not assist because its language protections concerned persons charged with criminal offences.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed. The County Court’s decision was upheld: [2009] EWCA Civ 1279.
2. Birmingham County Court: Mr Recorder Tidbury dismissed the appellant’s section 204 appeal on 19 December 2008. No neutral citation is stated.
3. Statutory review: A review officer decided on 30 May 2008 that the offered accommodation was suitable. That determination was not challenged in these proceedings.