B v London Borough of Redbridge

A request for a statutory review of accommodation suitability must be made within 21 days under section 202(3) of the Housing Act 1996, unless the authority allows longer in writing. Expiry of that period does not prevent a person asking the authority to consider a later material change in affordability. The authority must deal with such an out-of-time request rationally, and an irrational refusal may be challenged by judicial review. A refusal to reconsider an earlier decision is not irrational merely because one atypical winter bill exceeds an original estimate where representative evidence supports the estimate. Later financial changes must be addressed as later changes and cannot retrospectively determine the rationality of the earlier decision.

B sought judicial review of Redbridge’s refusal to conduct a further review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 of the suitability of accommodation provided to her. She relied on an electricity bill exceeding the weekly estimate used when the accommodation was allocated and argued that affordability had changed. The High Court dismissed the claim in [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin), holding that the request for a statutory review was out of time under section 202(3), while other routes remained available for a material change of circumstances. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether there was a real prospect of successfully challenging that conclusion or the rationality of the council’s refusal to reconsider.

Permission to appeal was refused.

1. The statutory wording was clear. A request for review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 had to be made within 21 days of notification of the authority’s decision, unless the authority allowed a longer period in writing. The applicant therefore had no real prospect of showing that the High Court was wrong to treat her request as out of time.
2. The expiry of the statutory period did not prevent the authority from considering a later request based on a material change in circumstances. The authority would have to act rationally in deciding whether to consider such a request. An irrational refusal could be challenged by judicial review, as recognised in C v London Borough of Lewisham [2003] EWCA Civ 927. The council also remained under a continuing obligation to secure suitable accommodation.
3. The single electricity bill did not demonstrate that the refusal to reconsider affordability was irrational. It covered the coldest part of the year and could be atypical. Longer-term bills showed an average cost below the original estimate of £20 per week, confirming the rationality of the decision.
4. Later evidence of increased expenses could not affect the rationality of the decision made in April 2018. If the applicant’s financial circumstances had subsequently changed materially, she could ask the council to consider an out-of-time review. The court permitted citation of its judgment but confirmed that it remained a single-judge judgment on permission to appeal.

Order: Application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2019] EWCA Civ 1592, Lord Justice Males refused permission to appeal and upheld the decision and reasoning of the High Court.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court — In [2019] EWHC 250 (Admin), Mr Jeremy Johnson QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissed the claim for judicial review.