Sheppard v London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames

An appeal under the Housing Act 1996 is confined to points of law. The county court has no statutory appeal jurisdiction over interim-accommodation decisions, and a housing authority may rely on a possession order without reopening the underlying proceedings. A review decision may be made before the maximum period expires. A minded to find notice is required only where the reviewing officer identifies a deficiency in the original decision or its making. Articles 3 and 8 do not require the state to provide a home. An academic appeal remains discretionary and will not proceed unless specified conditions are met.

Following her eviction, Ms Sheppard applied to the respondent housing authority and was found intentionally homeless. A review upheld that decision. She appealed to Kingston-upon-Thames County Court under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996, challenging the inquiries, review procedure, interim accommodation decision, human-rights and discrimination issues, and the reliance on the possession order. HHJ Williams rejected the grounds, including for want of jurisdiction concerning interim accommodation. In the Court of Appeal, Ms Sheppard sought permission for a second appeal and a stay after securing private accommodation. The central issues were whether any arguable point justified permission and whether an academic appeal should proceed.

1. Scope of the county court appeal. An appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 lies on a point of law only and exists only where the Act provides a right of appeal. The county court therefore had no jurisdiction to determine the interim-accommodation issue. A decision under section 188 was not appealable under the Act, although it was judicially reviewable on very limited grounds.
2. Review procedure. The eight-week period in regulation 9 of the Review Procedures Regulations was a maximum period. The authority was entitled to reach its decision sooner. Regulation 8(2) was engaged only where the reviewing officer identified a deficiency in the original decision or in the manner in which it was made. No such deficiency had been found.
3. Human rights and discrimination. Article 3 prohibits torture and Article 8 requires respect for the home, but neither provision, separately or together, requires the state to provide a person with accommodation. The discrimination allegations were unsupported by evidence.
4. Possession order and stay. The housing authority was not an appellate court and was entitled to rely on the county court possession order without going behind it. A stay could not be granted once the possession order had been executed. The court noted that setting aside a possession order after execution in rare cases of fraud or oppression was a distinct remedy.
5. Academic appeal. Ms Sheppard was no longer homeless because she had secured private accommodation. An academic appeal would not proceed unless it raised a general point of importance, the respondent agreed or was indemnified as to costs, and both sides could properly ventilate the arguments. Even then, continuation remained discretionary. None of those conditions was satisfied, and the arguable grounds did not justify a second appeal. Permission to appeal and the stay were refused. The order was: application refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2012] EWCA Civ 302, permission for a second appeal and a stay of the executed possession order were refused.
2. Kingston-upon-Thames County Court: HHJ Williams rejected the challenges to the homelessness decision, including holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over interim accommodation. No citation was stated.