Amina Ahamed, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Haringey

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals and held that the review officer was entitled to conclude that the room at Northumberland Park Hostel (Room 7) was "suitable" accommodation within the meaning of section 189B(7)(a) of the Housing Act 1996 and that the Council was therefore entitled to bring its relief duty under section 189B to an end. The court considered the relationship between the relief duty in section 189B and the main housing duty in section 193, reiterating that suitability and reasonableness to continue to occupy are distinct concepts but that a finding under section 189B(7)(a) often makes it unlikely that the applicant remains "homeless" for the purposes of section 193.

The court found that the review officer had made sufficient inquiries under section 184, had given proper consideration to medical and dietary issues and to affordability, and had applied the public sector equality duty (Equality Act 2010, s.149) with appropriate focus on the applicant's disabilities. On that basis the officer's reasoning about suitability, sharing facilities and affordability was within the range of reasonable conclusions.

Background and parties: The appellant, Ms Amina Ahamed, had been accommodated at Northumberland Park Hostel (Room 7) by the London Borough of Haringey after her NASS accommodation ended. She claimed that the room was not "suitable" and that it was not reasonable for her to continue to occupy it, with the consequence that she remained "homeless" under the Housing Act 1996. The respondent was the London Borough of Haringey.

Procedure and relief sought: The case reached the Court of Appeal following a review decision by a review officer (Mr Minos Perdios) dated 7 April 2022 which concluded that the Council's relief duty under section 189B had come to an end, and after an earlier refusal of permission for judicial review by Upper Tribunal Judge Ward ([2022] EWHC 1086 (Admin)). The appellant sought to overturn the review decision and to establish that she remained homeless and entitled to the main housing duty under section 193.

Issues framed by the court: (i) the relationship between section 189B (relief duty) and section 193 (main housing duty); (ii) whether the accommodation was "suitable"; and (iii) whether, despite suitability for the purposes of section 189B(7)(a), the appellant remained "homeless" because it would not be reasonable for her to continue to occupy the accommodation.

Key facts and findings: The review officer had considered medical records, sample menus from the hostel, correspondence from the hostel manager, and spoke to the appellant's surgery and health care assistant. He concluded the accommodation was affordable (rent and service charge covered utilities, food at breakfast and dinner, TV licence and council tax) and that dietary needs related to diabetes could be met. He also considered sharing facilities and the appellant's asserted need to use the toilet frequently and concluded that toilet access was adequate. He expressly recorded that he considered the appellant to be disabled and said he had had regard to the Equality Act 2010 (s.149).

Court's reasoning: The Court of Appeal accepted that "suitability" and the reasonableness of continued occupation are distinct concepts (citing Ali and subsequent authorities) but emphasised that where section 189B(7)(a) is properly applied the scenario in which accommodation is suitable yet the applicant is nonetheless homeless is much less likely. The court held the review officer had made the necessary and reasonable inquiries under section 184, had given focused consideration to the appellant's disabilities in line with the public sector equality duty, and had reached conclusions on affordability, dietary adequacy and sharing facilities that were open to him on the material before him. The review decision was therefore lawful and rational.

Wider context: The court reiterated that review and appeal procedures under sections 202 and 204 of the 1996 Act are generally the appropriate route for challenging homelessness decisions, with judicial review reserved for exceptional cases.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the review officer was entitled to conclude that the accommodation (Room 7 at Northumberland Park Hostel) was "suitable" within section 189B(7)(a) of the Housing Act 1996, that sufficient inquiries had been made under section 184, and that the public sector equality duty had been properly considered; on that basis it was reasonable to conclude the appellant was not "homeless" for the purposes of section 193 and the relief duty could be brought to an end.

Permission for judicial review was refused by Upper Tribunal Judge Ward sitting as a High Court judge ([2022] EWHC 1086 (Admin)). A review decision by the council's review officer was given on 7 April 2022. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted by Snowden LJ on 3 November 2022 on a single ground. A County Court appeal under section 204 was transferred by His Honour Judge Luba KC on 31 January 2023 and the transfer was accepted by Andrews LJ on 21 April 2023. The Court of Appeal delivered judgment on 11 August 2023 ([2023] EWCA Civ 975).