J v Wandsworth London Borough Council

The Court of Appeal considered the meaning of "local connection" under section 199 of the Housing Act 1996 and the procedural obligations of a reviewer under Regulation 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999. The court held that a refuge placement may, depending on the facts, amount to residence "of [the applicant's] own choice" for the purposes of section 199(1)(a) and that the reviewing officer was entitled on the material before her to conclude that the respondent's residence in Lambeth was of her own choice. However, intervening events raising a real risk of domestic violence after the original decision had been made rendered that original decision deficient and the reviewer was required to follow the mandatory Regulation 8(2) procedure by issuing a further "minded to find" notice and giving the applicant an opportunity to respond.

This appeal arose from a county court decision which varied a review decision of Wandsworth council under the Housing Act 1996. The respondent, a victim of domestic violence, had been placed in a women’s refuge in Lambeth after leaving Leicester. The council's initial section 184 decision (7 March 2012) accepted she was homeless, eligible and in priority need but concluded she had a local connection with Lambeth because her refuge residence was "of her own choice" and therefore referred the application to Lambeth under section 198. The respondent sought review and provided further material including that she had relocated from the Lambeth refuge to a Southwark refuge because of fears her former partner was attempting to find her. The county court quashed the review and ordered Wandsworth to secure accommodation under section 193.

Nature of application: appeal under section 204 Housing Act 1996 challenging a review decision and seeking to require the appellant to house the respondent.

Issues before the Court of Appeal:

• whether residence in a refuge in Lambeth was "residence of [her] own choice" for the purposes of section 199(1)(a);
• whether the reviewer complied with Regulation 8(2) when intervening events occurred after the original section 184 decision.

Court’s reasoning: The court applied authority requiring deference to factual findings by the reviewer and a practical approach to review decisions. It concluded the reviewer did not misapply the legal test: on the available material the respondent had voluntarily chosen to come to London, to seek a refuge and to accept the particular refuge place in Lambeth, so that residence could properly be treated as "of her own choice". Separately, the court held that the emergence of new facts about the risk of domestic violence and the respondent's move to Southwark made the original decision deficient in a way that engaged Regulation 8(2). The reviewer was therefore obliged to issue a fresh "minded to find" notice and to allow further representations before confirming the referral to Lambeth. The Court of Appeal set aside the county court's mandatory order that Wandsworth provide accommodation and remitted the matter for reconsideration under the review procedure.

Appeal allowed in part. The Court of Appeal concluded that the reviewing officer was entitled as a matter of law to find that the respondent's residence in the Lambeth refuge could be "of her own choice" under section 199(1)(a), but that intervening events created a material deficiency in the original decision so that the reviewer was obliged to follow Regulation 8(2) and issue a further "minded to find" notice; the county court's order requiring the appellant to secure accommodation was set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration under the review procedure.

Appeal from Wandsworth County Court (HHJ Welchman) judgment dated 11 December 2012. Appeal heard in the Court of Appeal, neutral citation [2013] EWCA Civ 1373 (Case No: B5/2012/3414). Earlier administrative decisions included an initial s.184 decision dated 7 March 2012 and a review decision dated 26 July 2012.