Julian Querino v Cambridge City Council

The Court of Appeal allowed the council's appeal. The appellate court held that the reviewer was not required to send a "minded to" letter under regulation 7(2) of the Homelessness (Review Procedure etc.) Regulations 2018 in respect of the emergence of a Cafcass section 7 report, because the reviewer was obliged to disregard the report as its disclosure had not been authorised. The court held that the mere existence of an undisclosed Cafcass report did not, of itself, render the original offer decision deficient; exceptional circumstances would be required to treat children as reasonably expected to reside with the applicant under the Housing Act 1996 and the local lettings policy. The court further held that sections 193(7F) and 193(8) did not invalidate the offer in this case because the applicant accepted the Part 6 offer and the council, as landlord of both the temporary and offered accommodation, could ensure contractual obligations did not overlap. Finally, the reviewer was entitled to disregard the Cafcass report for confidentiality reasons under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and related authorities, so her decision that the one‑bedroom flat was suitable for occupation stood.

Background and procedural posture:

• Mr Querino became homeless in January 2022 and the council accepted a duty under section 188 and later the main housing duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. The council offered him a one‑bedroom social tenancy (the Flat) under Part 6. The offer letter stated the Flat was suitable and referred to the council's lettings policy (paragraphs 5.5.1 and 5.5.2).
• Mr Querino accepted the offer but requested a review of suitability. His solicitors submitted representations including a Cafcass section 7 report. The reviewer was informed that the Cafcass report had not been authorised for disclosure and proceeded to disregard its contents. The reviewer concluded the Flat was suitable.
• Mr Querino appealed to the County Court under section 204 and, on 29 March 2023, His Honour Judge Moloney allowed the appeal on three grounds: (1) failure to send a "minded to" letter under regulation 7(2); (2) non‑compliance with section 193(7F) and (8); and (3) error in disregarding the Cafcass report. The council appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues framed:

1. Whether the reviewer should have sent a "minded to" letter under regulation 7(2) because of the existence of the Cafcass report.
2. Whether the offer complied with section 193(7F) and (8) of the Housing Act 1996.
3. Whether the reviewer was obliged to take into account the Cafcass report or, alternatively, whether disregarding it vitiated the review decision.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions:

• The court analysed the scope of regulation 7(2). It accepted that a "deficiency" can arise from events after the original decision, but concluded that the mere fact a Cafcass report had been prepared or emerged was not sufficient to show a deficiency warranting a "minded to" letter. In the context of the established authorities and the council's lettings policy, exceptional circumstances would be necessary before children who have a main home with the other parent would be regarded as reasonably expected to reside with the applicant.
• On sections 193(7F) and 193(8), the court reasoned that those subsections concern final offers within the specific statutory regime under subsection (7) (i.e. where refusal brings the duty to an end). Here the applicant had accepted the Part 6 offer and the duty ended under section 193(6)(c); in any event the council, as landlord of both hostel and flat, could ensure the applicant could end obligations to the temporary accommodation before taking up the offered tenancy. Norton v Haringey (distinguished) did not assist the respondent.
• As to the Cafcass report, the court held that its disclosure to the reviewer had not been authorised; on the authority of section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and the Griffiths authorities, the reviewer was right to disregard the report. The reviewer had nevertheless given clear reasons, applying Holmes‑Moorhouse and the local policy, and properly concluded there were no exceptional circumstances requiring larger accommodation. There was therefore no basis to quash the review decision.

Wider context: The court emphasised the distinction between family proceedings and housing decisions: while family court views are material, housing authorities decide different questions under the homelessness scheme and will only in unusual cases be required to provide accommodation for children who already have a home with the other parent.

Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal held that the reviewer was not obliged to send a "minded to" letter in respect of an unauthorised Cafcass report; that sections 193(7F) and 193(8) did not invalidate the offer in these circumstances (the applicant had accepted the offer and the council could ensure obligations did not overlap); and that the reviewer was correct to disregard the Cafcass report for confidentiality reasons under section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. Consequently the County Court’s decision allowing the respondent’s appeal was wrong and the council’s appeal succeeds.

Appeal to the Court of Appeal from the County Court at Cambridge (His Honour Judge Moloney KC (sitting in retirement), Claim No. J01PE636). At first instance the County Court allowed the respondent's appeal on 29 March 2023. This Court (Civil Division) heard the council's appeal and allowed it ([2024] EWCA Civ 314).