Stanley v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

A written agreement extending the time for notification of a homelessness review under regulation 9(1) of the Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018 need not specify a final calendar date. The parties may agree a general extension for a period whose precise end is not initially known. Their correspondence and conduct must show that agreement. An applicant may later require a decision within a specified reasonable time.

The court further explained that a late review decision is not a nullity. It replaces the original decision. Following a late review decision, the applicant must ordinarily pursue an appeal against either the original decision or the review decision, rather than both. The original-decision appeal will normally be treated as academic unless the applicant shows a distinct legitimate interest in pursuing it.

The Council decided under section 184 of the Housing Act 1996 that Ms Stanley was intentionally homeless. She requested a review. The parties first agreed a fixed seven-day extension for notification of the review decision. The reviewing officer then sought further representations after that date, and Ms Stanley’s solicitors obtained further time to provide them. The review decision, upholding the original decision, was notified on 2 October 2019.

Ms Stanley lodged appeals against both the original decision and the review decision. HH Judge Bloom struck out the former and dismissed the latter. Ms Stanley appealed only the striking-out order. The issues were whether there was a written agreement to extend the review period and, if not, the effect of bringing appeals against both an original decision and a late review decision.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. McCombe LJ, with whom Peter Jackson LJ and Roberts J agreed, held that the review decision had been notified within an agreed extension of time under regulation 9(1) of the Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018.

2. The regulation does not require an agreed extension to identify a specific final date. A written agreement may extend the notification period generally, even where the precise end of the period will depend upon a future event or further exchanges. Such an arrangement can be practical where representations, negotiations or external information remain outstanding. The applicant may withdraw co-operation with an open-ended extension by requiring a decision within a stated period; if no decision follows, an appeal may then be brought.

3. On the facts, the solicitors’ request for further time to answer the minded-to letter necessarily accepted that the review decision would be notified after the former deadline. Their subsequent request for a decision shortly after their representations confirmed that understanding. Notification six days later was within the short, unspecified extension agreed in writing. The appeal therefore failed on that basis.

4. Although unnecessary to the result, the court rejected the argument that a review decision notified late is void. Sections 202(4) and 203(3) of the Housing Act 1996 require the authority to complete and notify the review; those duties do not lapse when the regulatory time limit expires. The remedy for delay is an appeal against the original decision under section 204, not the invalidation of a subsequently notified review decision.

5. Once a late review decision has been notified, it replaces the original decision. Section 204 ordinarily permits a choice between an appeal against the original decision and an appeal against the review decision, but not both. If both are brought, the county court will normally deal with the review appeal unless the applicant has a distinct legitimate interest in quashing the original decision: Deugi v Tower Hamlet LBC [2006] EWCA Civ 159. Speculation about a different decision-maker, fresh evidence, delay, or continuation of the interim housing duty did not establish such an interest on these facts.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Dismissed Ms Stanley’s appeal against the order striking out her appeal from the original homelessness decision: [2020] EWCA Civ 1458.
• County Court at Luton On 15 January 2020, HH Judge Bloom struck out the appeal against the section 184 decision and dismissed the appeal against the section 202 review decision.
• Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council On 1 July 2019, made the original adverse homelessness decision under section 184 of the Housing Act 1996. The review decision of 2 October 2019 upheld it.