Farah v London Borough of Hillingdon

In an intentional-homelessness assessment, a rent shortfall is not enough to show deliberate homelessness. The housing authority must decide whether the accommodation was affordable, having regard to the applicant’s resources, housing costs and reasonable living expenses. A failure to pay is not deliberate where payment would require the applicant to forgo ordinary necessities. On review, the authority must genuinely reconsider the initial decision and give reasons that are sufficiently specific and intelligible to address material criticisms. The court must respect the authority’s factual assessment, but may quash a decision that omits obviously relevant matters or merely repeats an unsupported conclusion. The detail required is fact-sensitive, particularly where expenditure is justified as necessary for disability or family needs.

The appellant, who was disabled and had three children, lost privately rented accommodation after rent arrears accrued. The Council accepted that she was eligible, homeless and in priority need, but decided under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 that she had become intentionally homeless by deliberately failing to pay rent.

A reviewing officer upheld the decision. The Willesden County Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal under section 204. On a second appeal, the appellant challenged the assessment of affordability, the treatment of her income and expenditure, consideration of the statutory guidance, and the adequacy of the review reasons. The question was whether the review decision disclosed an error of law.

Appeal allowed. The review decision was quashed and the section 204 appeal was remitted to the Council for reconsideration by another housing officer.

1. Under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, the critical question was whether the accommodation was affordable and therefore reasonable for the appellant to continue to occupy. A failure to pay rent caused by inadequate resources is not deliberate for the purposes of section 191. Continued occupation is not reasonable where payment would deprive the applicant and family of ordinary necessities. The authority was entitled to consider all sources of income, and the argument that income support and disability living allowance were ring-fenced had been abandoned.
2. Affordability was for the housing authority to assess. The court’s jurisdiction under section 204 was supervisory and did not permit substitution of its own factual assessment where evidence supported the authority’s conclusion. Nevertheless, a review decision had to be adequately reasoned. Section 203(4) required reasons sufficiently detailed, specific and intelligible to show why the applicant had lost and whether the decision could be challenged. This was consistent with Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2003] UKHL 5, R v Westminster City Council, ex parte Ermakov [1996] 2 All ER 302 and R v London Borough of Croydon ex p Graham (1993) 26 HLR 286.
3. The required level of detail depended on the issue and facts. A housing authority need not identify every paragraph of guidance or provide over-detailed reasons: Birmingham City Council v Balog [2013] EWCA Civ 1582. But where an applicant had justified disputed expenditure, particularly expenditure arguably required for disability or family needs, the reviewer had to explain why the justification was rejected. The reviewer also had to consider obviously relevant matters, even if the applicant had not raised each point expressly: Cramp v Hastings Borough Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1005.
4. The review letter merely repeated the earlier assertion that the rent was affordable if expenditure had been prioritised. It did not address the guidance, the appellant’s explanation, the disputed expenditure, or the social fund deductions, and gave no reasons for accepting the affordability assessment. That was an error of law.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): the appeal was allowed. The review decision was quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration by another housing officer.
2. Willesden County Court: Mr Recorder Widdup dismissed the appellant’s section 204 appeal against the reviewing officer’s decision.