Abdullah v Westminster City Council

For homelessness under section 175 of the Housing Act 1996, the issue is whether accommodation is available and reasonable for the applicant to continue occupying. Matrimonial home rights may protect a spouse even where the home is jointly held with a non-spouse. In assessing availability and reasonableness, the decision-maker may consider continued occupation, the absence of enforcement steps, overcrowding, domestic circumstances and medical evidence. On a section 204 appeal, the court’s task is to identify an error of law in the review decision. It may assess the legal significance of undisputed facts without usurping the authority’s fact-finding function.

Mrs Ameera Abdullah lived in a two-bedroom council house with her husband, her mother, who were joint tenants, and her son. After her mother asked her to leave, she applied for housing assistance under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. The Council decided under section 184 that she was not homeless and that it was reasonable for her to continue occupying the property. The review decision was upheld, and her appeal on a point of law under section 204 was dismissed by the Central London County Court. The central issues were whether the accommodation remained available, whether matrimonial home rights under section 30 of the Family Law Act 1996 applied, whether continued occupation was reasonable, and whether the Recorder had exceeded her appellate remit.

Disposition and reasoning

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Lord Justice Mummery held that the crucial decision was the Council’s review decision, not the judgment of the Recorder. The review decision had to be read as a whole, and the question was whether it contained an error of law.

2. The review officer was entitled to conclude that the accommodation remained available. Mrs Abdullah had continued occupying the house for nearly two years after first asking the Council for assistance, and neither joint tenant had taken steps to enforce the request that she leave.

3. The house was self-evidently the matrimonial home. Matrimonial home rights under section 30 of the Family Law Act 1996 protected Mrs Abdullah from eviction or exclusion by her husband. The mother’s status as the other joint tenant did not prevent section 30 from applying. Denying protection merely because the husband held the tenancy jointly with a non-spouse would defeat the statutory objective.

4. It was therefore unnecessary to determine the legal power of one joint tenant acting alone to terminate an implied licence by reference to Annen v Rattee [1985] 1 EGLR 136, Robson-Paul v Farrugia (1969) 20 P & CR 820 or Hammersmith & Fulham LBC v Monk [1992] 1 AC 478.

5. The review officer had properly considered whether it was reasonable for Mrs Abdullah to continue living in the house. Relevant matters included the degree and local context of overcrowding, the sleeping arrangements, deteriorating marital relations, the relationship with her mother, and her physical and mental health. The Recorder was entitled and required to consider the legal significance of undisputed primary facts. She had not usurped the Council’s fact-finding role, and there was no point of law arising from the review decision.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal on 19 October 2011, holding that no error of law arose from the review decision.
• Central London County Court: dismissed the appeal under section 204 on 24 November 2010.