Samuels v Birmingham City Council

For intentional homelessness purposes, affordability requires an overall assessment of all relevant income and expenditure. Social security benefits have no special status that excludes them from consideration or creates a presumption that they cannot contribute towards housing costs. A housing authority must show substantive consideration of relevant guidance, but need not identify every paragraph expressly. The reasons required depend on the issues and the information supplied. Where expenditure figures are uncertain and unsupported by itemised explanations, a broad assessment may be sufficient. Later evidence may clarify an ambiguity in stated reasons, but cannot fundamentally alter or contradict them.

The appellant had been an assured shorthold tenant whose accommodation was lost after rent arrears accrued. Birmingham City Council decided on a second homelessness application that she had become intentionally homeless because the accommodation had been affordable and reasonable to continue to occupy. The council’s review decision relied on the household’s benefit income, rent shortfall and expenditure figures, including revised figures supplied by her solicitors.

The County Court at Birmingham dismissed her appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996. The further appeal challenged the affordability assessment, the admission of a reviewing officer’s explanatory email, and the adequacy of the review decision’s reasons.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Richards gave the judgment, with which Lord Justices Floyd and Sales agreed.

1. Under sections 191(1) and 177(3) of the Housing Act 1996, and article 2 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996, affordability required a judgment based on income and relevant expenses as a whole. All forms of income, including social security benefits, and all relevant expenses, including rent and reasonable living expenses, had to be considered. There was no basis for treating benefits as presumptively unavailable for housing costs. The reasoning in Burnip v Birmingham City Council & Another [2012] EWCA Civ 629 was confined to its different discrimination and housing-benefit context.
2. Paragraph 17.40 of the Code of Guidance did not require express reference to each of its components. The decision had to show that the relevant matters were substantively considered. The residual-income benchmark and the need to avoid deprivation of basic essentials had been addressed sufficiently. The reviewing officer was entitled to conclude that the applicant could meet the rent shortfall without sacrificing basic necessities.
3. The principles in R v City of Westminster, ex p. Ermakov (1995) 28 HLR 819 permitted evidence clarifying or elucidating stated reasons, but not evidence fundamentally altering or contradicting them. The reviewing officer’s email clarified the household size already implicit in the decision and was properly admitted.
4. A review decision must enable the applicant to understand how and why the conclusion was reached, but the required detail depends on the issues and the information provided. Unlike Farah v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 359, the applicant had supplied no itemised justification for the revised expenditure figures. The reviewing officer could therefore make a broad judgment that the food and household figure was excessive and that sufficient flexibility existed to meet the rent shortfall. Further identification of particular items was unnecessary.
5. The council was entitled to rely on the benefit income figure repeatedly confirmed by the applicant and her representatives. The tax-credit document disclosed past and future deductions but did not show that actual receipts at the relevant time were lower.

The review decision was adequately reasoned and the appeal was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) In [2015] EWCA Civ 1051, the court dismissed the further appeal.
2. County Court at Birmingham His Honour Judge Worster dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the council’s review decision.