Nikolaeva v London Borough of Redbridge

This appeal concerned whether the local housing authority's "final offer of accommodation" under section 193(7) of the Housing Act 1996 had been validly refused, thereby discharging the authority's main housing duty. The court held that the "final offer" is the offer made by the local housing authority and, where accommodation is to be provided by a third party, must be linked to actual accommodation capable of occupation. The reviewing officer and the judge were entitled to find that the appellant had refused to sign the assured tenancy on 29 June 2017 and maintained that refusal through 4 July 2017, so that the authority's duty was discharged.

Material subsidiary findings included that (i) the nomination by the authority to the housing association was not itself a final offer, (ii) the reviewing officer had given consideration to the applicant's mental health and the Equality Act 2010 in deciding suitability, and (iii) there was no evidence the Property had been withdrawn before the refusal was maintained. The court applied the benevolent approach to interpretation of review decisions but concluded that, despite some confusion in the review, the Review Decision was one which could rationally have been reached.

Background and parties: The appellant, Mrs Nikolaeva, had been owed the main housing duty by the London Borough of Redbridge since 2004. Redbridge nominated her to a housing association for a ground-floor one‑bedroom flat (the Property). After viewing and being asked to sign an assured shorthold (starter) tenancy on 29 June 2017, she did not sign. Redbridge decided on 7 July 2017 that its section 193 duty had ceased because she had refused a final offer of accommodation. The decision was reviewed and upheld; the appellant appealed to the County Court and then to this court.

Nature of the claim and relief sought: The appeal challenged the County Court order dismissing the appellant's challenge to the Review Decision. The appellant sought to set aside the Review Decision on grounds including that the reviewing officer irrationally found a refusal on 4 July 2017 contrary to the evidence, that insufficient time had been given to consider the offer, and that the authority failed to consider whether the accommodation remained available.

Issues framed: (i) What constitutes a "final offer of accommodation" under section 193(7) and when that offer is made when a third party provides the accommodation; (ii) whether the reviewing officer irrationally found a refusal on 4 July 2017; (iii) whether the appellant had a reasonable opportunity to consider the offer (Guidance para. 14.22 and s.193(7F)); and (iv) whether the reviewing officer should have considered whether the Property remained available when the refusal was maintained.

Reasoning and outcome: The court held that the final offer under section 193(7) is the offer made by the local housing authority and must relate to actual accommodation capable of occupation; a mere nomination is not itself a final offer. Reading the Review Decision benevolently, the reviewing officer was entitled to find that the refusal began with the appellant's refusal to sign the tenancy on 29 June 2017 and was maintained on 4 July 2017. The appellant had had several weeks, including after the viewing on 8 June, to consider the offer, and there was no evidence the Property had been withdrawn before the refusal was maintained. Although portions of the Review Decision were confused, the errors did not undermine the outcome and the decision was the only rational one available. The appeal was dismissed.

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that a "final offer of accommodation" under section 193(7) is an offer made by the local housing authority and must be tied to actual accommodation which the applicant can occupy; a nomination alone is not sufficient. Read benevolently, the reviewing officer was entitled to find that the appellant refused to sign the tenancy on 29 June 2017 and maintained that refusal on 4 July 2017, that she had had a reasonable period to consider the offer, and that there was no evidence the Property had been withdrawn prior to the maintained refusal. Those findings meant the authority's main housing duty had ceased and the Review Decision was rational and properly upheld.

Appeal from Central London County Court (HHJ Luba QC, case number E40CL323). Review Decision dated 6 December 2018 upheld by the County Court on 9 December 2019; appeal to the Court of Appeal heard and dismissed ([2020] EWCA Civ 1586).