SH, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Waltham Forest

A local housing authority cannot discharge its duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 through a private rented sector offer unless the statutory conditions are satisfied. The applicant must receive a written offer containing the specified warnings, including the consequences of acceptance or refusal, the right to seek a suitability review and the effect of a further application. The accommodation must also be suitable. Proper due diligence must take account of the known characteristics and vulnerabilities of the applicant and household. Where the original section 193 duty has never been discharged, a later lesser duty under section 189B cannot arise, and a later application is not necessarily a fresh application.

The claimant, a refugee and survivor of trafficking, challenged the defendant local authority’s handling of her homelessness application. She alleged that offers of accommodation in Ilford and Tottenham had not validly discharged the authority’s duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. She also challenged exclusion from the authority’s housing allocation scheme; that issue was agreed and discontinued on terms that she would be included retrospectively. The remaining issues concerned the validity and suitability of the private rented sector offers, and whether a later application engaged the prevention duty under section 189B.

1. Outcome. The claim succeeded on the Part 7 challenge. The defendant remained under its section 193(2) duty to secure suitable accommodation. The Part 6 challenge was discontinued on agreed terms.
2. For a private rented sector offer to discharge the duty under section 193, the applicant must have been informed in writing of the matters specified in section 193(7AB). The offer must also satisfy section 193(7AC), including the fixed-term tenancy requirement, be made pursuant to the authority’s arrangements, and concern accommodation which the authority is satisfied is suitable. The court treated these as statutory conditions rather than matters capable of being presumed from ordinary administrative practice.
3. The Ilford offer did not discharge the duty. The absence of the offer letter, the computer records and the surrounding evidence established that the claimant had not received the required statutory notification under section 193(7AA) and (7AB). The defendant’s standard practice and assumptions by advisers could not cure that non-compliance.
4. The Tottenham property was unsuitable. Proper due diligence should have identified the unlawful sexual activity in the communal grounds. The authority also had to take account of the particular characteristics of the claimant and her daughter, including the claimant’s history of trafficking for sexual exploitation and the effect on the child.
5. Because the original section 193 duty had never been discharged, the lesser duty under section 189B(2) could not arise. The July 2018 approach was not a fresh application. Regulation 4 of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 (Commencement and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Regulations 2018/167 meant that the relevant amendments did not apply to the claimant’s pre-3 April 2018 application. The defendant had acted unlawfully by failing to secure suitable accommodation.