Julian Querino v Cambridge City Council

Regulation 7(2) of the Homelessness (Review Procedure etc) Regulations 2018 can apply to a review of an accommodation offer, even though the original offer need not give reasons. A deficiency may arise from a later event or an overlooked important matter, but it must be sufficiently important to procedural fairness to justify an additional safeguard. The mere existence of a Cafcass report does not meet that threshold, particularly where disclosure was unauthorised. Family-court decisions about child arrangements inform but do not determine the housing authority’s assessment. Accommodation for children who have a home with the other parent will ordinarily require exceptional needs or circumstances. Sections 193(7F) and (8) of the Housing Act 1996 concern final offers refused under section 193(7), not offers accepted under section 193(6)(c).

Mr Querino, who was owed the main housing duty, accepted a one-bedroom flat offered by Cambridge City Council under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. He sought a review, arguing that the accommodation was unsuitable because he wished his daughters to stay overnight and because of his family and health circumstances. His solicitors supplied a Cafcass report, but disclosure had not been authorised by the Family Court.

The reviewing officer disregarded the report, upheld the suitability decision and concluded that no additional bedroom was required. On an appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996, the County Court allowed the appeal on three grounds: failure to send a minded-to letter, non-compliance with sections 193(7F) and (8), and unlawful disregard of the Cafcass report. The Council appealed to the Court of Appeal. The central questions were whether the review decision was legally flawed and whether the offer complied with the statutory scheme.

The Court of Appeal, in the judgment of Newey LJ with which Warby and Underhill LJJ agreed, allowed the Council’s appeal.

1. Review procedure. Regulation 7(2) applies to a review of a suitability decision concerning accommodation offered in discharge of the main housing duty. The fact that an offer letter need not contain reasons does not make a deficiency impossible to identify. A deficiency may arise from a subsequent event or from an important consideration overlooked when suitability was assessed. The omission must, however, be sufficiently important to the fairness of the procedure to justify the additional safeguard. That assessment is evaluative and challengeable only on public-law grounds. The authorities including Hall v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2004] EWCA Civ 1740 and J v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1373 were applied.
2. Cafcass report and children’s arrangements. Disclosure of the Cafcass report was not authorised under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 or the Family Procedure Rules. The reviewer was therefore right not to consider its contents, and that omission could not vitiate the review decision. The mere emergence of such a report did not itself disclose a deficiency. Something further indicating exceptional needs or circumstances would have been required.
3. Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council [2009] UKHL 7 establishes that family-court welfare and housing questions are distinct. A shared-residence or child-arrangements order is material but does not bind the housing authority. In the circumstances, and having regard to the Council’s policy, the reviewer was entitled to conclude that larger accommodation was not required and that there was no need to await a further Family Court order.
4. Statutory offer requirements. Sections 193(7F) and (8) of the Housing Act 1996 regulate a final Part 6 offer made for the purposes of section 193(7), where refusal may end the main housing duty. They do not apply to an offer accepted under section 193(6)(c). In any event, the Council owned both the existing hostel accommodation and the offered flat and could arrange for the existing obligations to end before the new accommodation was taken up. Norton v Haringey London Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1340 was distinguishable.
5. The absence of discussion in the offer letter of affordability, disability, the public sector equality duty or the children’s wishes did not itself establish a deficiency. The significance of an omission depends partly on the applicant’s representations, and those representations had not identified those matters as independently material.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed Cambridge City Council’s appeal and rejected the three grounds on which the County Court had allowed the section 204 appeal.
2. County Court at Cambridge: His Honour Judge Moloney KC allowed Mr Querino’s appeal against the review decision, holding that a minded-to letter was required, that sections 193(7F) and (8) had not been complied with, and that the Cafcass report had been unlawfully disregarded.