Nadia Zaman v London Borough Of Waltham Forest

When discharging homelessness functions, a local housing authority must generally try, where possible, to secure out-of-borough accommodation as close as possible to where the applicant previously lived. A published allocation policy does not remove that obligation. The policy must respect the proximity principle and be duly implemented.

A private rented sector offer may be communicated by the authority on a private landlord’s behalf without identifying the landlord. However, the main housing duty continues unless the applicant has received all the written information required by sections 193(7AA) and 193(7AB) of the Housing Act 1996, including the effect of section 195A(2).

These conjoined second appeals concerned private rented sector offers made by London housing authorities to discharge the main housing duty under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.

Waltham Forest offered Ms Zaman accommodation in Stoke-on-Trent. Her statutory review upheld its suitability, and His Honour Judge Gerald dismissed her section 204 appeal. She contended that the evidence did not establish that the authority had implemented its lawful procurement policy by seeking accommodation as close as reasonably practicable to its borough.

Bexley offered Ms Uduezue a three-bedroom house in Chatham. A reviewing officer upheld its suitability, and His Honour Judge Saggerson dismissed her appeal. Her appeal concerned the availability of two-bedroom accommodation, inquiries into the effect of relocation on her daughter, the requirements for a private rented sector offer, and Bexley’s failure to explain the effect of section 195A(2).

1. Both appeals allowed. Newey LJ gave the judgment of the court. Asplin and Nicola Davies LJJ agreed.

2. Where in-borough accommodation is not reasonably practicable, an authority must generally try, where possible, to place a household as close as possible to where it previously lived. Article 2(a) of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 and paragraph 17.51 of the statutory Code apply generally. A published allocation policy may justify offering a less proximate property to a particular applicant, but the policy itself must respect the proximity principle and must be properly implemented: paras 42–48.

3. Waltham Forest’s acquisition policy was lawful, but the evidence did not demonstrate its implementation. The review decision neither confirmed that the authority had prioritised Zone C properties closer to the borough nor adequately explained why so many placements were in Stoke-on-Trent. It was therefore not apparent that the offered property was the closest accommodation the authority could secure. Ms Zaman’s appeal was allowed: paras 52–54.

4. Bexley was not required to consider two-bedroom accommodation specifically when Ms Uduezue had not indicated that it would suffice. In any event, the reviewing officer had rationally decided that only three-bedroom accommodation was suitable. Nor was Bexley required to contact her daughter’s school. An authority’s inquiries are legally inadequate only where no reasonable authority could have been satisfied on the inquiries actually made. The information supplied disclosed no evident need for further investigation: paras 59–68.

5. The Chatham offer qualified as a private rented sector offer. Read as a whole, Bexley’s letter communicated an assured shorthold tenancy offer made by a private landlord. Section 193(7AC) does not require the landlord’s identity to be disclosed: paras 69–72.

6. Following Norton v Haringey London Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1340, the information required by sections 193(7AA) and 193(7AB)(c) includes the effect of section 195A(2). Bexley had omitted that information. The statutory conditions for cessation were therefore unmet, and its main housing duty continued. The court had no discretion to treat the omission as immaterial: paras 73–90.

7. The court granted Ms Uduezue permission to rely upon that additional ground. A second appeal as a whole must satisfy the statutory gateway; each successful ground need not independently raise an important point of principle or practice: paras 81–82 and 91–92.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Both second appeals were allowed in [2023] EWCA Civ 322. Ms Uduezue was also granted permission to advance an additional ground.

2. County Court at Central London: His Honour Judge Gerald dismissed Ms Zaman’s appeal on 21 July 2022. His Honour Judge Saggerson dismissed Ms Uduezue’s appeal on 1 July 2022.

3. Statutory reviews: Waltham Forest upheld the suitability of Ms Zaman’s Stoke-on-Trent offer. Bexley upheld the suitability of Ms Uduezue’s Chatham offer.