The London Borough of Croydon v Lopes

On a homelessness appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996, the local housing authority determines in the first instance what inquiries are necessary under section 184. Its decision can be challenged only on ordinary public law grounds. A county court must not quash a decision merely because further inquiries would have been helpful or might have produced additional information.

Where an appeal is withdrawn after the appellant produces new evidence which requires a fresh homelessness application, the costs decision depends on the substance and circumstances of the settlement. If the authority would have succeeded on the original material, the appellant may be ordered to pay the appeal costs, subject to any applicable public funding protection.

The Council appealed against an order of HHJ Bailey requiring it to pay 85% of Ms Lopes’s costs of her statutory appeal. Ms Lopes had appealed under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against a review decision that she was not homeless because accommodation remained available to her and her family in Portugal.

After the appeal was issued, Ms Lopes produced a letter from her mother-in-law stating that she could no longer accommodate the family. The Council agreed to withdraw the review decision and conduct a fresh review. The county court then awarded Ms Lopes most of her appeal costs. The central issues were whether the county court had applied the correct test concerning the Council’s inquiries and what costs order was appropriate after the appeal became academic.

1. Appeal allowed. The order requiring the Council to pay 85% of Ms Lopes’s costs was set aside.
2. Section 184 of the Housing Act 1996 requires a local housing authority to make such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy itself whether a statutory duty is owed. The authority decides in the first instance what inquiries are necessary. Its decision is open to challenge on ordinary public law grounds.
3. On an appeal under section 204, the court may intervene only where the authority’s approach was unlawful. It is insufficient that further inquiries would have been helpful or might have produced additional information. The Council had interviewed Ms Lopes twice, using interpretation assistance, and had obtained information about the Portuguese accommodation, her departure and her family’s continued occupation. It was entitled to rely on that information and was not required to contact her mother-in-law.
4. On the material before the review officer, the Council would have succeeded in resisting the appeal. The new letter produced after the appeal began rendered the appeal academic and required the Council to consider a fresh application and make fresh inquiries. The fact that Ms Lopes obtained the practical relief sought did not therefore justify an award of costs in her favour.
5. The appropriate order was that Ms Lopes pay the Council’s costs of the appeal, subject to any protection applicable because she was publicly funded.

• Court of Appeal: In [2016] 1 WLR 3138, the Court held that an appeal concerning costs alone lay to the High Court rather than the Court of Appeal, and remitted the matter. Permission to appeal was granted.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): The appeal was allowed and the county court’s costs order was set aside.