Hanton-Rhouila v Westminster City Council

A local housing authority may assist a homelessness applicant to secure private accommodation while inquiries under Housing Act 1996, Part 7 are continuing. The authority must not avoid its statutory duties, and clear advice about the consequences of accepting alternative accommodation is good practice. An appeal court will not interfere with a review decision merely because another view of the facts is possible. It is sufficient that the reviewing officer was entitled to find that suitable accommodation was available and reasonable for the applicant to occupy, and to reject allegations that the applicant had been misled, coerced or inadequately advised.

The appellant applied to Westminster City Council for assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 after being asked to leave accommodation occupied with relatives. Before the Council completed its inquiries under section 184, it helped her secure a 12-month assured shorthold tenancy in the private sector and paid the landlord an incentive. The Council then decided that she was not homeless because suitable accommodation was available for her occupation. A reviewing officer upheld that decision, and HHJ Levy QC dismissed the appellant’s first appeal. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the review decision contained an error of law or was procedurally unfair.

1. Appeal dismissed. The review decision contained no error of law or procedural unfairness. The appeal concerned whether the reviewing officer was entitled to reach two factual conclusions.
2. Once the appellant had taken the 12-month tenancy, she was not homeless within section 175 of the Housing Act 1996. The property was suitable and it was reasonable for her to occupy it.
3. The reviewing officer was entitled to reject the assertions that the property had been represented as temporary accommodation and that the appellant had been misled or coerced.
4. The Council could lawfully assist a Part 7 applicant to find private accommodation before completing its inquiries. Advice about the consequences of accepting such accommodation was at least good practice, including explaining the effect on the Part 7 application and the possibility of priority under Part 6. Neither the Act nor the guidance required that advice to be given in writing.
5. The review officer had investigated the complaints, inspected the housing file and contacted the relevant caseworker. On that evidence, the officer was entitled to conclude that there was no evidential basis for the complaints. HHJ Levy QC had correctly held that quashing the decision would be futile.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed. Lord Justice Mummery gave the judgment, with Lord Justices Sullivan and Etherton agreeing.
• Central London County Court: HHJ Levy QC dismissed the first appeal on 5 November 2009 and held that the Council’s review decision was lawful.
• Westminster City Council review: On 28 August 2009 the reviewing officer upheld the Council’s decision under section 184 that the appellant was not homeless.