Maswaku v Westminster City Council

Under section 193(5) of the Housing Act 1996, an authority need inform an applicant of the consequence stated in that provision: that its housing duty will cease if a suitable offer is refused. It need not set out every later event that may follow from discharge of that duty.

Procedural requirements concerning a homelessness review are construed purposively. Substantial compliance may suffice where the applicant has received the required information directly or through solicitors acting in the review. A reviewer must give a regulation 8(2) notice only where an important deficiency or irregularity in the original decision engages that safeguard.

The Council accepted that the appellant was homeless, eligible and in priority need, and provided temporary accommodation. It later offered alternative temporary accommodation in Dagenham. The appellant refused it, principally because of travel arrangements for her college course and her children’s schooling.

The Council decided that the offer was suitable and that its housing duty had ended. On review, the Principal Reviews Officer upheld that decision. HHJ Knight QC dismissed the appellant’s section 204 appeal to the County Court on 24 March 2011.

The appellant’s second appeal challenged the adequacy of the section 193(5) refusal notice and compliance with regulations 6(2) and 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999.

1. Appeal dismissed. Mummery LJ gave the judgment, with which Moore-Bick LJ and Black LJ agreed.

2. Section 193(5) of the Housing Act 1996 required the Council to inform the appellant of the consequence identified by the subsection: that a refusal of suitable accommodation would end the Council’s housing duty. The offer letter did so in language a reasonable reader would understand. It was unnecessary to explain every further possible consequence, such as eviction from existing temporary accommodation, a fresh homelessness application, or allocation-list consequences. The sufficiency of the information was initially for the reviewer, subject to a county-court appeal on a point of law.

3. There was no breach of regulation 6(2). The appellant had been told in the original decision letter that she could seek a review, make representations and have another person put her case. Her solicitors then requested the review, were invited to add to her case, and made further representations. The purpose of the notification requirement was therefore achieved by the information supplied directly and through her solicitors.

4. Regulation 8(2) was not engaged. A deficiency means something lacking of sufficient importance to procedural fairness to warrant the additional safeguard of a notice that the reviewer is minded to reach an adverse decision. The travelling-time issue had been considered before the original decision and was fully addressed in the solicitors’ review representations and the review decision. The reviewer’s conclusion that the accommodation was within reasonable travelling distance was open on the information available, and disclosed neither legal error nor irrationality. No further inquiries or regulation 8(2) notice were required.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed: [2012] EWCA Civ 669.
• Central London County Court: HHJ Knight QC dismissed the appellant’s section 204 appeal on 24 March 2011.