Ravichandran & Anor v London Borough of Lewisham

An offer of permanent accommodation expressly made under section 193(7) of the Housing Act 1996 cannot subsequently be treated as an offer under section 193(5). For a section 193(7) offer, the authority must separately decide that the accommodation is suitable and that it would be reasonable for the particular applicant to accept it.

The applicant may obtain reviews of suitability, reasonableness of acceptance and cessation of the housing duty. Those matters may be reviewed together. Where cessation is reviewed separately, the authority must consider relevant circumstances existing before refusal which were not considered during an earlier review, even if the applicant raised them only later.

The appellants were owed the main homelessness duty by the respondent local housing authority. They refused an expressly final offer of permanent accommodation under section 193(7) of the Housing Act 1996 and obtained a review dealing principally with suitability. After the authority subsequently decided that its duty had ceased, they sought a further review and relied on alleged racial abuse experienced while viewing the offered property.

The authority upheld its discharge decision without considering that allegation. Her Honour Judge Faber dismissed an appeal under section 204, holding that suitability did not require reconsideration and that [2007] EWCA Civ 610 permitted the authority to rely alternatively on section 193(5).

The central issues were whether an expressly section 193(7) offer could be treated as falling under section 193(5), whether reasonableness of acceptance had been reviewed, and what matters the discharge review had to consider.

1. The appeal was allowed. Sections 193(5) and 193(7) of the Housing Act 1996 govern materially different offers. Section 193(5) concerns temporary accommodation provided under Part VII. Section 193(7) concerns permanent accommodation offered under the authority’s Part VI allocation scheme. An authority should state which provision it invokes. Having expressly made an offer under section 193(7), it cannot later treat the offer and its refusal as falling under section 193(5).

2. A section 193(7) offer engages two distinct requirements under section 193(7F). The authority must be satisfied both that the accommodation is suitable and that it would be reasonable for the particular applicant to accept it. Calling the offer itself reasonable does not satisfy the latter requirement. The decision-maker must consider the applicant’s personal characteristics, needs, hopes and fears, and then apply the objective standard of a right-thinking housing authority.

3. Omar v Birmingham City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 610 was confined to its facts. Its offer did not expressly identify whether section 193(5) or section 193(7) applied, and there was no issue about compliance with section 193(7F). It did not establish that an authority could reclassify an expressly section 193(7) permanent offer so as to avoid the reasonableness requirement.

4. Section 202(1)(f) provides a review of suitability. Section 202(1)(b) provides reviews of the reasonableness requirement and of the authority’s decision that its section 193 duty has ceased. A cessation decision remains reviewable even if cessation follows automatically once the statutory conditions are satisfied. Suitability, reasonableness and cessation can, and desirably should, be reviewed together. Section 202(2) then prevents a further review of those decisions.

5. The October 2008 review addressed suitability, not whether it would be reasonable for the appellants to accept the accommodation. The later discharge review therefore had to consider the alleged racial incident because it occurred before refusal and was relevant to reasonableness. Alternatively, even if reasonableness had previously been reviewed, the incident remained relevant to the later, separate discharge review because it had not earlier been considered. The authority’s failure to address it rendered the May 2009 decision defective.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal and rejected the authority’s reliance on section 193(5) of the Housing Act 1996.
2. Central London County Court: Her Honour Judge Faber dismissed the appellants’ section 204 appeal from the authority’s May 2009 review decision.