Firoozmand v London Borough of Lambeth

When deciding whether accommodation secured under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 is suitable, a local housing authority must have regard to Parts 1 to 4 of the Housing Act 2004. That duty links the hazard-assessment regime to the suitability decision but does not create a separate or wider duty to inspect. A complaint does not automatically require a section 4 inspection before suitability is decided. The authority must exercise judgment, considering the nature and seriousness of the complaint, existing information, whether the alleged condition could amount to a category 1 or 2 hazard, and the practical delay of formal assessment. Its decision is reviewable for misdirection or irrationality.

Following eviction, Mr Firoozmand applied to the London Borough of Lambeth for homelessness assistance. The Council accepted that it owed him the full housing duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 and provided temporary accommodation at Studio 52.

He challenged its suitability because of noise, his mental-health conditions and, later, alleged dampness linked to chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis. A reviewing officer upheld the suitability decision. HH Judge Mitchell dismissed the appellant’s appeal under section 204. Permission for a second appeal was granted only on whether section 210(1) required the Council to undertake a hazard inspection or assessment under the Housing Act 2004.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Patten LJ gave the judgment, with which Kitchin LJ and Gloster LJ agreed.

1. Effect of section 210(1). The duty to have regard to Parts 1 to 4 of the Housing Act 2004 means that the hazard-assessment code cannot be treated as wholly unrelated to the authority’s provision of homelessness accommodation. It does not, however, enlarge the duties contained in Part 1 of that Act. Where the authority considers that an inspection under section 4 is appropriate, or is subject to a mandatory inspection duty following an official complaint, those circumstances must be considered when assessing suitability.
2. No automatic inspection. Whether a section 4 inspection is appropriate is a matter of judgment for the authority in each case. Relevant considerations include the nature and seriousness of the complaint, what is already known about the property, whether the alleged problem could amount to a category 1 or 2 hazard, and the possible delay caused by a formal assessment. Temur v Hackney LBC [2014] HLR 39 did not establish that every complaint about accommodation requires an inspection before suitability can be decided.
3. Information and rationality. The authority may decide that it has sufficient information to determine suitability without a formal assessment, subject to challenge for misdirection or irrationality. The Secretary of State’s Code of Guidance recommendation that accommodation should at least be free of category 1 hazards did not create a wider statutory duty.
4. Application. The Council investigated the noise complaint, addressed the door-closing device and obtained information that anti-social behaviour had ceased. The noise was ordinary domestic noise in an urban setting. The accommodation was on the top floor and was intended to remain temporary while alternative accommodation was sought. The chance that the noise constituted a category 1 hazard was remote. The absence of an express reference to the Housing Act 2004 in the review letter did not prove that the officers had failed to have regard to it. The suitability decision was neither unlawful nor irrational.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): on 3 September 2015, dismissed the second appeal. [2015] EWCA Civ 952
• Central London County Court: HH Judge Mitchell dismissed the appellant’s appeal under section 204 against the reviewing officer’s suitability decision.
• Earlier County Court stage: HH Judge Wulwik quashed an earlier review decision because no proper original suitability decision had been made. The Council then made a fresh decision, which was upheld on review.