Sambotin, R (On the Application Of) v The London Borough of Brent

Under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, eligibility and local connection are separate questions. The main housing duty crystallises when an authority is satisfied that the applicant meets the four conditions in section 193(1). A subsequent local-connection referral determines which authority must discharge that duty; it does not postpone the eligibility decision or leave that decision open to reconsideration.

A final statutory decision ordinarily renders the authority functus officio. The authority cannot reverse a favourable eligibility decision merely because it later considers it wrong. Reconsideration remains possible in limited circumstances, including fraud or fundamental mistake of fact, while a decision made before completion of the necessary enquiries is not final.

The respondent applied to the London Borough of Brent for homelessness assistance under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Brent decided that he was homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. It then referred his case to another authority on local-connection grounds. After that authority refused to accept the referral, Brent withdrew it and reversed its favourable eligibility determination.

On judicial review, Sir Wyn Williams quashed the later decision: [2017] EWHC (Admin) 1190; [2017] HLR 31. Brent appealed. The central issue was whether an authority could reconsider eligibility after making a local-connection referral on the basis that its original decision was wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The decision that the respondent was eligible for housing assistance was final. Brent was therefore unable to reverse it merely because it later considered it wrong.

2. The statutory scheme separates eligibility from local connection. Under sections 193 and 198 of the Housing Act 1996, the main housing duty crystallises when the authority is satisfied that the applicant is homeless, eligible, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. Only then can the local-connection referral process begin. That process decides which authority must discharge the duty; it does not continue or reopen the eligibility inquiry.

3. The words “would be” in section 198(1) refer to a duty which exists as a prerequisite to referral. Section 200(1)(b) suspends the operative effect of that existing duty while the referral is determined. It does not prevent the duty from arising. If the referral conditions are not met, the referring authority remains responsible; if they are met, responsibility passes to the receiving authority.

4. The receiving authority is bound by the referring authority’s eligibility determination, subject to resolution of any dispute about the statutory local-connection criteria. The statutory mechanism does not permit the receiving authority to reopen eligibility. This construction promotes clarity in the allocation of responsibility and prevents an eligible applicant being left in uncertainty while authorities revisit matters outside the referral criteria.

5. A public authority that has finally exercised a statutory power is ordinarily functus officio. Limited exceptions permit reconsideration following fraud or fundamental mistake of fact, while a determination made before completion of the necessary enquiries is not final. Brent’s later decision involved no factual mistake. It was a rethink on the same facts, which the principle of finality precluded.

6. The court endorsed the analysis in Dagou that a local-connection referral follows the creation of the full housing duty. It recognised that Dagou had been disapproved to the extent that it might confine permissible reconsideration to fraud alone.

7. It was unnecessary to decide whether Brent was separately required to explain why it considered itself entitled to reconsider the earlier decision. The dependent ground concerning the interim accommodation duty consequently failed, and the High Court’s order remained in force.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The authority’s appeal was dismissed. The favourable eligibility determination was final, and the later adverse decision remained quashed: [2018] EWCA Civ 1826.
2. High Court (Queen’s Bench Division) (Administrative Court): Sir Wyn Williams allowed the judicial review claim, quashed Brent’s later eligibility decision and ordered it to secure interim accommodation: [2017] EWHC (Admin) 1190; [2017] HLR 31.