B, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Redbridge

A request for review under Housing Act 1996, section 202, must be made within 21 days of the relevant decision, unless the authority permits a longer period in writing. This time limit applies equally to suitability decisions under section 202(1)(f). The statutory scheme provides one review of a decision. It does not require an authority to entertain a second review of the same decision.

Suitability may nevertheless change. The authority’s continuing duty to secure suitable accommodation may require a fresh suitability decision, which can then attract a review request. An authority may also exercise an extra-statutory discretion to consider an out-of-time or further review. Any refusal to exercise that discretion must be rational and may be challenged by judicial review.

The claimant, who was being accommodated under the defendant local authority’s duty under Housing Act 1996, section 193, challenged the refusal to undertake a second review of the accommodation’s suitability. She relied on a later electricity bill which, she said, demonstrated that the accommodation was unaffordable.

The authority had already reviewed the original suitability decision under section 202(4) and concluded that the accommodation was affordable. The claimant’s statutory appeal to the County Court had been dismissed, and related permission applications were pending. The central issue was whether section 202 required the authority to conduct a further review of the original suitability decision.

1. The claim was dismissed. The second request for review concerned the original suitability decision. It was made outside the 21-day period in section 202(3), and the authority had not agreed in writing to extend time. The obligation in section 202(4) to conduct a review therefore did not arise.
2. Section 202(3) applies to every request for review under section 202(1), including a request under section 202(1)(f) concerning suitability. The court could not read into the provision a qualification excluding suitability decisions. The interpretative obligation under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 did not arise, and ordinary principles of interpretation did not justify rewriting the statutory language.
3. The statutory scheme contemplates one review of a decision. It does not confer a right to a second review of the same decision. This conclusion was supported by the approach in C v London Borough of Lewisham, [2003] EWCA Civ 927. The authority may, however, choose to conduct an extra-statutory further review.
4. The authority’s continuing duty under sections 193(2), 193(3) and 206 to secure suitable accommodation did not amount to a continuing decision that the existing accommodation was suitable. If circumstances changed, the claimant could ask the authority to make an updated suitability decision. A decision then made could be reviewed under section 202(1)(f).
5. An authority may allow an out-of-time request or consider a further review as a matter of discretion. It must act rationally in deciding whether to do so. The court declined to amend the claim because the factual and procedural basis for such a challenge had not been developed.
6. The claimant was not without possible remedies. She could seek an updated suitability decision, request an extra-statutory review with up-to-date information, or make a fresh application under section 183(1) on the basis that the accommodation was unaffordable.

The judgment was a first-instance decision on an application for judicial review. The claimant’s related statutory appeal to the County Court had been dismissed, but the judgment does not provide a citation for that decision. Applications for permission to appeal to the High Court and Court of Appeal were pending.