Adam v London Borough Of Waltham Forest

Under section 199(1) of the Housing Act 1996, normal residence means the place where a person actually resides. Interim accommodation may count towards local connection only where it is in the district with which the connection is claimed. Accommodation arranged and paid for by an authority in a neighbouring borough does not count as residence in that authority’s district. Guidance must not be applied rigidly. An alternative special-circumstances argument must be raised with the review officer and is fact-sensitive. A second appeal requires a real prospect of success and an important point of principle or another compelling reason.

The applicant challenged a homelessness review decision by the London Borough of Waltham Forest. He had lived in Waltham Forest for about five months before moving for approximately two and a half months into temporary accommodation in neighbouring Newham, secured and paid for by Waltham Forest.

The review officer found no local connection with Waltham Forest because the Newham accommodation did not count as residence there. HHJ May QC dismissed the appeal against that decision. The applicant renewed his application for permission to appeal, arguing that the temporary accommodation should count towards normal residence or, alternatively, be treated as a special circumstance. The central issues were the meaning of normal residence and whether the proposed alternative argument raised an important point of principle.

The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. Sir Stephen Richards agreed with Vos LJ that the County Court had made no error of law and that the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success.

1. For the purposes of the local-connection provisions of the Housing Act 1996, normal residence means the place where the person in fact resides. The court applied the reasoning in Mohamed v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [2001] UKHL 57.
2. Residence in interim accommodation may be taken into account where the accommodation is in the district with which the local connection is claimed. That principle did not make the applicant resident in Waltham Forest while he was actually living in Newham. The fact that Waltham Forest secured and paid for the accommodation did not alter the position.
3. The relevant guidance was not a straitjacket. The review officer had not applied it rigidly, and was entitled to reject the argument that the Newham period counted towards normal residence in Waltham Forest.
4. An argument that accommodation in another borough should count otherwise than through normal residence was, in substance, an argument based on special circumstances. It had not been advanced to the review officer, so the officer could not be faulted for failing to consider it. In any event, the issue was case-specific.
5. The proposed appeal raised no important point of principle and disclosed no other compelling reason for a second appeal. Permission was therefore refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Vos LJ refused permission on the papers. On renewal, Sir Stephen Richards refused permission to appeal.
• Central London County Court: HHJ May QC dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the homelessness review decision.
• Review decision: The local housing authority’s review officer concluded that the applicant had no local connection with Waltham Forest.