Nzolameso v City of Westminster

Under section 208(1) of the Housing Act 1996, a local housing authority must secure accommodation in its district so far as reasonably practicable. The duty is not absolute and does not confine the authority to the applicant’s individual circumstances. The authority may consider housing shortages, anticipated demand, comparative needs, and financial or administrative pressures, provided it genuinely addresses the duty and acts rationally. Location remains relevant to suitability, and relevant Secretary of State guidance must be taken into account. A reviewing officer need not detail every alternative property or expressly cite the guidance if the decision, read as a whole, shows proper consideration of the household’s circumstances, proximity needs and available resources.

The appellant became homeless with her five children after housing benefit was reduced. Westminster accepted that it owed her the main housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 and offered temporary accommodation in Bletchley, near Milton Keynes. She refused the offer because of its distance from her children’s schools and her loss of local support. Westminster’s reviewing officer upheld the decisions that the accommodation was suitable and that the authority’s duty had been discharged. The Central London County Court dismissed her appeal under section 204. The central issues were whether Westminster had complied with section 208(1), whether paragraph 48 of the Supplementary Guidance affected suitability, and whether the review decision had an adequate evidential basis.

The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Moore-Bick LJ gave the judgment, with Black LJ and Vos LJ agreeing.

1. Statutory framework. Section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 imposed a personal duty to the appellant, but that did not mean that section 208(1) had to be assessed solely by reference to her circumstances. Section 198, which permits referral of certain cases to another authority, did not restrict the meaning or operation of section 208. The court explained that section 208 reflected a preference for accommodation within the authority’s district, while recognising that local accommodation could not always be secured. R (Sacupima and others) v Newham London Borough Council [2001] 1 W.L.R. 563 showed that location was relevant to suitability, but did not resolve the wider issues raised by this appeal.
2. Reasonably practicable accommodation. Whether it was reasonably practicable to provide suitable accommodation in the district was for the housing authority to decide, subject to review for Wednesbury unreasonableness. The authority could consider housing shortages, likely demand, the comparative needs of applicants, and financial or administrative pressures. The approach in R (Calgin) v Enfield London Borough Council [2005] EWHC 1716 (Admin); [2006] H.L.R. 4 supported that conclusion. An applicant-specific interpretation would impose an unreasonable and disproportionate obligation to search widely for every suitable property.
3. Evidence and review. Courts should ensure that authorities genuinely consider section 208 and do not apply routine, unthinking policies. However, a decision letter need not set out detailed evidence of resources or every available alternative. Read as a whole, the reviewing officer’s decision and the housing file provided a sufficient evidential basis. She was entitled to consider the current position where it reflected the conditions at the date of the offer and had independently considered the appellant’s needs.
4. Guidance and suitability. Section 202 did not create a free-standing right to challenge compliance with section 208, but any failure to comply could bear on whether the accommodation was suitable. Section 182 required regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance. Express reference to paragraph 48 of the Supplementary Guidance was unnecessary because the reviewing officer had considered the appellant’s need for local links, Westminster’s pressures and the accommodation’s location. The accommodation at Bletchley was therefore suitable, Westminster had not breached section 208, and the appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division)—Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the reviewing officer’s decisions that the Bletchley accommodation was suitable and that Westminster’s housing duty had been discharged.
• Central London County Court—His Honour Judge Hornby dismissed the appellant’s appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 and upheld the reviewing officer’s decisions.