Slattery v Basildon Borough Council

On an appeal concerning the suitability of accommodation offered to a homeless person, the court determines whether the housing authority’s review decision contains an error of law. It does not decide suitability afresh. Review decisions written by housing officers should receive reasonable latitude and should not be analysed as rigorously as judicial judgments.

A cultural aversion to conventional housing does not ordinarily make that accommodation unsuitable. Exceptional impairment of physical or mental wellbeing may do so. A suitability review is confined to the applicant’s needs and accommodation available from the authority’s existing resources. It need not investigate whether failures in planning or site provision caused the absence of caravan pitches.

Following her eviction from Dale Farm for breach of planning control, the appellant, an Irish Traveller, applied to the respondent council for homelessness assistance. The council accepted that she was eligible, unintentionally homeless and in priority need. It offered a three-bedroom house as temporary accommodation.

The appellant sought a review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996. She contended that conventional housing was culturally unsuitable and presented a serious risk to her and her son’s psychiatric wellbeing. The review panel found the house suitable. Her appeal on a point of law under section 204 was dismissed by His Honour Judge Moloney QC in Southend County Court.

The Court of Appeal considered an oral application for permission to appeal concerning suitability and Convention rights. It also heard an appeal on whether the council could rely on the absence of caravan pitches without investigating its alleged failure to provide sites.

1. Disposition. The application for permission to appeal on grounds concerning suitability and Convention rights was refused. The appeal concerning the absence of caravan pitches was dismissed. Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was also refused. Arnold J and Sullivan LJ agreed with Briggs LJ.
2. A section 204 appeal based on irrationality or infringement of human rights is confined to errors of law in the review decision. The court does not decide afresh whether the offered accommodation was suitable. Written decisions of experienced housing officers should receive reasonable latitude and should not be subjected to the rigorous textual analysis appropriate to a judicial judgment.
3. The review panel had fully considered the psychiatrist’s report. It reasonably understood the principal threat to the appellant’s mental wellbeing to arise from eviction and the resulting loss of support from her Traveller community, rather than from occupation of conventional housing as such. Its expression of that conclusion disclosed no error of law. Evidence and cross-examination of the original decision-maker will rarely assist a section 204 appeal in the absence of an allegation such as bad faith.
4. The challenge under article 8 added nothing material. Assessing suitability under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 necessarily involves a proportionate assessment of the effect of the proposed accommodation on the applicant’s family life. The grounds concerning suitability and article 8 neither had a real prospect of success nor raised a sufficiently important point for a second appeal.
5. The court was bound by Sheridan & Others v Basildon Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 335. A section 202 review has the narrower function of deciding whether accommodation available from the housing authority’s existing resources adequately meets the applicant’s needs. It does not require an inquiry into whether failures of planning policy or site provision caused the absence of caravan pitches.
6. Codona v Mid-Bedfordshire District Council [2004] EWCA Civ 925 was not inconsistent with that conclusion. Its discussion of whether an authority had done all it could concerned the time reasonably allowed to obtain accommodation where nothing immediately available met the minimum suitability standard. It did not concern the logically prior question whether available accommodation met that minimum.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal on ground 3 was dismissed. Permission to pursue grounds 1 and 2 was refused, as was permission to appeal to the Supreme Court: [2014] EWCA Civ 30.
2. Southend County Court: His Honour Judge Moloney QC dismissed the appellant’s section 204 appeal in a reserved judgment handed down on 21 December 2012. No neutral citation is stated.
3. Basildon Borough Council review panel: The panel decided on 15 July 2011 that the house offered to the appellant was suitable temporary accommodation.