Thomas Norton v London Borough of Haringey

A local housing authority can discharge the main housing duty by a private rented sector offer only through scrupulous compliance with the statutory conditions. The written notice of the effect of a further application within two years must explain the special rule in section 195A(2) of the Housing Act 1996.

Before approving an offer, the authority must know enough to be satisfied that the applicant can end obligations relating to existing accommodation before taking up the new tenancy. It must also investigate the offered property’s physical condition, either by inspecting it or obtaining a report from a reliable source. Approval without those contemporaneous foundations is ultra vires and void, even if the applicant ultimately suffers no prejudice.

The appellant was owed the main housing duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. The London Borough of Haringey sought to discharge that duty by arranging a 24-month assured shorthold tenancy with a private landlord. At the time, the appellant occupied temporary accommodation under a licence requiring seven days’ notice of termination.

The authority decided that acceptance of the private rented sector offer had discharged its duty. A reviewing officer upheld that decision, and HHJ Hellman dismissed the appellant’s section 204 appeal.

The appellant appealed on three principal grounds: whether the offer adequately explained the effect of a further homelessness application within two years; whether the authority could properly be satisfied that his existing contractual obligations could end before he took up the offer; and whether it had investigated the offered property’s physical condition before approving it.

1. Appeal allowed. The statutory requirements governing discharge of the main housing duty protect the rights of people who are or may be homeless. An authority seeking to end its duty through a private rented sector offer must comply with those requirements. Technicality and absence of actual prejudice do not excuse non-compliance.
2. Section 193(7AB)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 required the authority to explain the effect under section 195A of a further application made within two years. That effect included section 195A(2), under which an applicant served with a valid section 21 notice is treated as homeless from the notice’s expiry. The offer did not explain that rule. The statutory notification condition was therefore unsatisfied. The court reserved its opinion on whether section 195A(6) must also be explained (Elisabeth Laing LJ at [43]; Males LJ at [54]–[58]).
3. Sections 193(7F)(ab) and 193(8) prohibited approval unless the authority was satisfied, when approving the offer, that the applicant could end obligations relating to his existing accommodation before being required to take up the new tenancy. The authority knew that the existing licence required seven days’ notice, but its offer did not identify the new tenancy’s commencement date. It therefore lacked the information needed to form the required satisfaction. Subsequent arrangements avoiding double payment could not cure that failure (Elisabeth Laing LJ at [44]; Males LJ at [59]–[60]).
4. Article 3(1)(a) of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 required a public authority to investigate the property’s physical condition before approving the offer. It could do so by inspecting the property itself or obtaining a report from a reliable source. No evidence showed that either had occurred by the approval date. The authority consequently lacked a basis for finding the accommodation suitable (Elisabeth Laing LJ at [45]–[46]; Males LJ at [61]).
5. The purported approval was ultra vires and void. The review decision was quashed, and the duty under section 193(2) continued. The authority’s application to adduce further evidence was refused because the material had been available before the county court (at [50]–[52]). Asplin LJ agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed. The authority’s review decision was quashed, and its main housing duty was held to continue: [2022] EWCA Civ 1340.
2. County Court: HHJ Hellman dismissed the appellant’s appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against the authority’s review decision.
3. London Borough of Haringey: A senior reviewing officer upheld the decision that acceptance of the private rented sector offer had discharged the authority’s main housing duty.