London Borough of Wandsworth v NJ

An applicant’s residence in a local authority district may be of her own choice, despite restricted options and an urgent need for refuge. The question is whether the reviewing officer could rationally find that the applicant chose to reside in that district. A court may intervene only where the officer applied the wrong legal test or relied on facts incapable of satisfying the statutory requirement.

New facts arising after an initial homelessness decision may render it deficient. If the reviewer proposes an adverse decision despite a material deficiency, regulation 8(2) requires a further notice stating the provisional reasons and permitting written or oral representations.

After fleeing serious domestic violence, the respondent travelled to London and accepted the only place then available in London through a refuge charity. That refuge was in Lambeth. She later applied to Wandsworth for homelessness assistance, but Wandsworth decided that she had a local connection with Lambeth and referred her application there under Housing Act 1996, section 198.

On review, Wandsworth maintained that decision. The county court quashed the review and ordered Wandsworth to provide accommodation. Wandsworth appealed. The principal questions were whether the respondent’s residence in Lambeth could legally be regarded as residence of her own choice and whether later evidence about a risk of domestic violence required a further regulation 8(2) notice.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. Wandsworth’s reviewing officer was entitled to find that the respondent’s residence in Lambeth was of her own choice for section 199(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1996. The officer had addressed the correct district-based question when her decision was read realistically and as a whole.

2. The reasoning in Al-Ameri v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2004] UKHL 4 remained binding as to the meaning of choice, notwithstanding its subsequent statutory reversal for asylum-support accommodation. Al-Ameri concerned a compulsory dispersal scheme under which the allocating body had to disregard an asylum seeker’s preferred locality. The present respondent, by contrast, chose London, approached a particular refuge provider and accepted the available Lambeth place. A choice among restricted options may still amount to a choice. The county court therefore could not substitute its own finding that no local connection existed.

3. Factual findings under sections 184 and 202 are for the housing authority. A court may interfere where the reviewer applied the wrong legal test, relied on facts incapable in law of satisfying the statutory requirement, or committed another public law error. The county court had exceeded that supervisory role on the local-connection issue.

4. The review decision was nevertheless procedurally unlawful. Evidence arising after the initial decision suggested that associates of the respondent’s former partner had seen her in Lambeth and that she had moved to another refuge because of the resulting safety concerns. Those facts went directly to the section 198(2)(c) condition that she would not run the risk of domestic violence in the receiving district.

5. Regulation 8(2) imposes mandatory duties to consider whether the original decision is deficient and, where a material deficiency exists but an adverse decision is proposed, to serve a further “minded to find” notice. The notice must disclose the reviewer’s provisional reasons and allow further written or oral representations. It is insufficient that the applicant previously submitted evidence on the issue, because she must have an opportunity to answer the reviewer’s reasons. Further representations could have affected the decision here.

6. The review decision remained quashed, but the order requiring Wandsworth to provide accommodation was set aside. The review request was remitted to Wandsworth for determination under section 202(4).

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed Wandsworth’s appeal on the local-connection issue, upheld the finding of a regulation 8(2) procedural breach, set aside the mandatory accommodation order and remitted the review to Wandsworth.
2. Wandsworth County Court: Allowed the respondent’s appeal from the section 202 review, quashed the review decision and ordered Wandsworth to secure accommodation for the respondent and her daughter.
3. London Borough of Wandsworth: The reviewing officer confirmed the initial decision that the respondent had a local connection with Lambeth and that her application could be referred there under section 198 of the Housing Act 1996.