Broderick v Bromley London Borough Council

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellant council's appeal and held that, where an applicant refuses an offer of accommodation and the authority relies on section 193(5) of the Housing Act 1996 to treat its duty as having ceased, the question whether the accommodation was suitable is to be assessed by reference to the circumstances as they were at the date the offer was made. The reviewing officer had properly considered what temporary accommodation was available to the council on 19 December 2017, including location and the local shortage of housing, and reasonably concluded the offer was suitable. The court rejected the respondent's submission that suitability should be assessed over a period after the offer or that the authority was obliged to delay or to make further offers.

Background and parties:

• The respondent, Miss Celisa Broderick, fled domestic abuse and applied to the London Borough of Bromley for housing. The council accepted it owed the main homelessness duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 and offered temporary accommodation at 186A Richmond Road, Gillingham (outside the borough) on 19 December 2017. The respondent refused that offer on 29 January 2018.
• The council notified the respondent on 7 February 2018 that it regarded its section 193 duty as having ceased under section 193(5) following refusal of a suitable offer. The respondent requested a review and the reviewing officer upheld the council's decision on 6 April 2018, relying on the availability of temporary accommodation on 19 December 2017 and the acute housing shortage in Bromley.

Procedural history:

• The respondent appealed the review decision to the County Court. His Honour Judge Lamb QC allowed the appeal and quashed both the discharge of duty decision and the review decision. The council then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the accommodation offered was suitable, and if so, at what point suitability should be assessed where the applicant refused the offer and the authority treated its duty as ended;
• Whether the authority was obliged to have delayed making the offer or to have revisited suitability in the days between the offer and the refusal;
• Whether the reviewing officer had given adequate reasons, including consideration of availability of other accommodation on or after the date of offer.

Court's reasoning and decision:

• The Court identified three distinct questions: (i) whether the accommodation was suitable; (ii) whether the authority should have performed its duty on a different date; and (iii) whether the authority should revisit suitability at a later stage. It held that where an offer is refused and the authority treats its duty as ended under s.193(5), suitability is to be judged by reference to the circumstances at the date of the offer.
• The court found it would be impractical and contrary to Parliament's intention to require authorities to delay offers or to reassess suitability over a short period in order to see if better properties appear, given housing shortages and administrative burdens.
• The reviewing officer had properly examined what accommodation was available on 19 December 2017, considered location factors (including the 2012 Order and Code guidance) and the local housing pressures, and had given adequate reasons. On that basis the offer was suitable and the council's decision to treat its duty as ended was lawful.

Remedies and practical guidance:

• The Court allowed the council's appeal and set aside Judge Lamb QC's decision. The judgment emphasised that applicants who are dissatisfied with offers are generally advised to accept and seek a review rather than refusing.

The appeal was allowed. The Court held that, where a person refuses an offer of accommodation and the authority relies on section 193(5) to treat its duty as ended, the suitability of the accommodation is to be assessed by reference to the position as at the date of the offer. The reviewing officer had properly considered the availability of accommodation on 19 December 2017 and reasonably concluded the offer at 186A Richmond Road was suitable in the context of serious housing shortages; there was no obligation to delay making the offer or to reassess suitability over the intervening period.

Appeal to the County Court at Central London under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 (Claim No. E40CL109) resulted in His Honour Judge Lamb QC allowing Miss Broderick's appeal (order quashing the discharge of duty decision and the review decision). The London Borough of Bromley appealed to the Court of Appeal (this judgment: [2020] EWCA Civ 1522), which allowed the council's appeal.