Sambotin, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Brent

A local housing authority which has completed its enquiries under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 and communicated a final decision as to the duty owed generally cannot reopen that decision. A referral to another authority does not prevent the referring authority’s decision from being final. Reopening is permitted only in very limited circumstances, including fraud or deception inducing the decision, or a fundamental mistake of fact. A failure properly to apply the statutory eligibility criteria to known facts is not such a mistake. An authority must also explain why it considers itself entitled to make a second, contradictory decision.

The claimant, a seriously injured Romanian national, applied to Brent for homelessness assistance. On 30 January 2017 Brent decided that he was homeless, eligible, in priority need and not intentionally homeless, but had no local connection with Brent, and referred his case to Waltham Forest under section 198 of the Housing Act 1996.

After Waltham Forest disputed the claimant’s eligibility, Brent withdrew the referral and issued a new decision on 10 February 2017 that the claimant was not eligible. The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that Brent had no power to revoke its earlier decision and had failed to give adequate reasons for doing so.

1. Judicial review. Although statutory review and appeal rights existed, the court retained a residual discretion to determine the claim. Given the costs and likely duplication of proceedings, it was in the interests of justice and efficient dispute resolution to decide the merits.
2. Finality of the first decision. Brent’s letter of 30 January 2017 showed that it had completed the enquiries required by section 184 of the Housing Act 1996. It had reached and communicated a final decision on the duty owed. The referral to Waltham Forest did not prevent that decision from being final. If the referral conditions failed, Brent would owe the section 193(2) duty; if they were satisfied, the receiving authority would be bound to deal with the case.
3. Limited power to reopen. The authority could revisit its decision only in very limited circumstances, including fraud or deception inducing the decision, or a fundamental mistake of fact. The evidence showed that Brent had been given the material facts, including Waltham Forest’s earlier decision. Any mistake was a failure to apply the eligibility criteria correctly, not a fundamental mistake of fact.
4. Reasons. Brent gave reasons for its conclusion that the claimant was ineligible, but failed to explain why it was entitled to make a second decision contradicting the first. It was under a duty to provide that explanation.
5. Outcome. The decision communicated on 10 February 2017 was quashed. The decision of 30 January 2017 continued to subsist. Brent remained subject to the duty under section 200 until the referral issue was resolved.