Alibkhiet v London Borough of Brent v City of Westminster

A housing authority may lawfully use a published allocation policy to distribute scarce in-borough and nearby accommodation among households to whom it owes the full housing duty. It must retain scope for exceptional cases and apply the policy correctly.

Under section 208, accommodation should be secured in the authority’s district so far as reasonably practicable and, if not, as close as possible. The authority may consider resources, supply, competing needs and transport. It need not defer a private rented sector offer in the hope that nearer accommodation will later become available.

A review decision must give sufficient reasons for its main conclusions. It should be read fairly and practically. The homelessness scheme imposes no separate common-law duty to give reasons when the original offer is made.

These joined appeals concerned decisions by the London Borough of Brent and the City of Westminster to discharge the full homelessness duty by offering private rented accommodation outside their districts under the Housing Act 1996.

Mr Alibkhiet was offered accommodation in Smethwick. Brent’s review decision said that closer accommodation was unavailable or was allocated under its priority policy to households with greater need. HHJ Saggerson quashed that decision because an Acton flat had apparently been available without an adequate explanation of why it was not offered.

Ms Adam was offered accommodation in Worcester Park. The judge dismissed her appeal against Westminster’s review decision, which had considered the effect on her children’s schooling, her health, support network and the availability of accommodation.

The common issues were compliance with the in-district duty, adequacy of review reasons, and whether reasons were required when an out-of-area offer was made.

1. Brent’s appeal was allowed and Ms Adam’s appeal was dismissed. Both review decisions were lawful.

2. Section 208(1) of the Housing Act 1996 requires an authority to secure in-district accommodation so far as reasonably practicable. If that is not reasonably practicable, it should generally seek accommodation as close as possible. Applying Nzolameso v Westminster City Council [2015] UKSC 22, the court held that an authority may take account of its resources, the shortage and cost of accommodation, competing demands, and the practicalities of procuring accommodation nearby.

3. A lawful allocation policy may prioritise scarce local and Greater London accommodation for households with greater need. The policy must permit exceptional cases, but a decision made by correctly applying it will ordinarily be lawful. The authority was not obliged to postpone a private rented sector offer in the hope that nearer accommodation might later become available. A known and imminent source of suitable accommodation could, however, be relevant.

4. Reasons for a review decision need address the main issues and must be read fairly, practically and without undue technicality. Brent’s letter, although capable of better expression, adequately explained that Mr Alibkhiet did not meet its priority criteria, had no special circumstances, and that the limited nearer accommodation was allocated to households with greater need. The presence of one or two possible properties in London did not invalidate that conclusion.

5. The statutory homelessness scheme did not impose a separate common-law obligation to give reasons when making the original offer. Parliament required reasons on review and provided a mechanism by which an applicant could accept an offer while challenging its suitability.

6. Westminster made adequate contemporaneous inquiries about available accommodation and Ms Adam’s circumstances. It was not required to make repeated inquiries over an unspecified period before making its offer. Brent’s policy also correctly required a private rented tenancy of at least 12 months; there was no two-year tenure requirement.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In the joined appeals, the court allowed Brent’s appeal and dismissed Ms Adam’s appeal: [2018] EWCA Civ 2742.
• Central London County Court: HHJ Saggerson quashed Brent’s review decision concerning Mr Alibkhiet, but dismissed Ms Adam’s appeal against Westminster’s review decision.