Kamara v London Borough Of Southwark

Where a homelessness review officer identifies a deficiency or irregularity in the original decision but is minded to reach an adverse outcome, regulation 8(2)(b) requires notice of the proposed decision, the reasons, and the right to make oral or written representations.

The notice need not expressly state that oral representations may be made at a face-to-face meeting. The ordinary meaning of oral representations includes such a meeting. The regulation does not require the reviewer to list every possible method of making representations, and the principle of legality does not require additional words where the right is created by statute and regulation.

Three conjoined appeals arose from homelessness review decisions under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996. In Kamara (D40CL261), Leach (D40CL191) and Piper (D00OX522), the reviewing officers sent minded-to letters indicating that adverse decisions would be upheld. Each letter invited further representations orally, in writing, or both, but did not expressly mention a face-to-face meeting.

The applicants made written representations and did not request oral hearings. The County Court decisions were challenged under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996. The central issue was whether regulation 8(2)(b) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999/71 required more detailed notification.

All three appeals were dismissed. Lord Justice Patten gave the judgment, with which Lord Justice David Richards agreed.

1. Scope of regulation 8(2). The provision applies only where the reviewer identifies a deficiency or irregularity in the original decision or the manner in which it was made, but is nevertheless minded to decide adversely. Its purpose is to allow the applicant to address new points that may support the same outcome for different reasons. No further representations are required where the adverse decision rests essentially on the original reasons.
2. Meaning of the notification requirement. Regulation 8(2)(b) is satisfied when the applicant or representative is told that representations may be made orally, in writing, or both. Following Makisi v Birmingham City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 355, oral representations may be made at a face-to-face meeting. However, the regulation does not require the reviewer to spell out that consequence or to identify every possible method of making representations.
3. Principle of legality. The principle did not justify reading additional words into regulation 8(2)(b). The right to an oral hearing was created by section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 and the Review Regulations. No independent Convention right or common-law procedural-fairness requirement was relied upon.
4. Administrative context. Homelessness reviews are straightforward administrative procedures and should not be scrutinised as though they were court judgments. A literal construction gives a simple and certain instruction and avoids uncertainty about whether a list of possible methods is complete. The 2006 Code of Guidance supported that construction.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2018] EWCA Civ 1616, all three appeals were dismissed.
• County Court at Central London — In Kamara (D40CL261), the Council’s decision that the appellant was not in priority need was upheld. In Leach (D40CL191), the decision that the appellant was intentionally homeless was upheld.
• County Court at Oxford — In Piper (D00OX522), the decision that the appellant was intentionally homeless was upheld.