Nzamy v London Borough of Brent

A request for a statutory review made by an unrepresented person should be read sensibly and broadly, so far as necessary to make effective use of the statutory right. Where an authority has indicated that refusing suitable accommodation will discharge its homelessness duty, a request challenging the accommodation’s suitability may also request review of the proposed discharge of duty. The reviewing officer must address both issues. Failure to do so requires the matter to be remitted for a further decision.

The appellants were a homeless family owed accommodation by the respondent local housing authority under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. They occupied temporary accommodation at Church Road. The authority offered alternative temporary accommodation at Kilburn High Road and warned that refusal would discharge its statutory duty.

The appellants’ handwritten letter requested review of the alternative accommodation’s suitability and asked to remain in their current home pending permanent accommodation. The reviewing officer considered suitability but not whether the authority’s duty had been discharged. The county court upheld the review decision. The central issue on appeal was whether the letter had requested review of both matters.

1. Appeal allowed on one ground. The application for permission to amend the grounds of appeal was refused.
2. Under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, the authority’s duty to provide accommodation to an eligible person with priority need who was not intentionally homeless could cease under section 193(5) where the applicant, after being informed of the possible consequence of refusal and of the right to request a review of suitability, refused suitable accommodation and the authority notified the applicant that it regarded its duty as discharged.
3. Section 202 provided a right to request review both of the authority’s decision as to what duty was owed under section 193 and of the suitability of accommodation offered. A request by an unrepresented applicant had to be read with common sense and broadly, in favour of making effective use of that statutory right.
4. In context, the appellants’ letter was not limited to suitability. The authority had expressly warned that refusal of the Kilburn High Road accommodation would discharge its duty. The request to remain in the existing accommodation until permanent housing was offered necessarily challenged the intended discharge of duty as well as the suitability of the proposed accommodation.
5. The reviewing officer had therefore been required to consider whether the authority had validly discharged, or would validly discharge, its duty. The parties agreed that this issue had not been properly considered. The matter was remitted to a reviewing officer for a further determination.
6. Lady Justice Arden agreed with Lady Justice Black and Mr Justice David Richards. She left open the questions whether the same words could amount to waiver of the authority’s duty and what considerations had to be taken into account by the reviewing manager. The proposed Article 8 ground was not admitted.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the Central London County Court, where His Honour Judge Higgins upheld the reviewing officer’s decision that the Kilburn High Road accommodation was suitable and apparently inferred that the authority’s duty had been discharged. Appeal allowed on the review-scope issue and remitted for a further decision.