Rabah Ghaoui v London Borough of Waltham Forest

The Court of Appeal held that a reviewing officer deciding the suitability of accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 is not required to conduct a formal, structured human rights analysis identifying and labelling Convention rights before reaching a practical suitability decision. Human rights considerations (in particular Article 9 and Article 2 of the First Protocol) are relevant factors to be taken into account, but respecting those rights is achieved through the outcome of the decision and the weight given to relevant circumstances rather than by imposing a prescribed rights‑analysis process.

The judge applied the Human Rights Act 1998 s.6, Article 9 and A2P1 of the ECHR, the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012, the Homelessness Code (paras 1.20, 1.28) and s.11 Children Act 2004. The court agreed with the recorder that the reviewing officer had considered the schooling issue and other factors and that there was no interference with Article 9 on the facts. Therefore there was no error of law in the review decision and the appeal was dismissed.

Background and parties. The appellant, Mr Rabah Ghaoui, his wife and two young children applied to the London Borough of Waltham Forest for homelessness assistance after eviction. The authority provided temporary accommodation and later an assured shorthold tenancy in Harlow, outside the family’s previous locality and some miles from a private Islamic academy the parents wished their older child to attend.

Procedural history. The authority accepted the main housing duty under s.193 Housing Act 1996 and made an offer which the family refused. The appellant sought an internal review under the Homelessness Code and then appealed under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996 to the County Court. Recorder Deal KC dismissed the appeal on 3 March 2023, finding no legal error in the review decision. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted on 12 September 2023 and the appeal was heard on 18 April 2024; judgment was handed down on 24 April 2024.

Nature of the claim and relief sought. The appellant challenged the review decision as unlawful on grounds that the reviewing officer failed to recognise and assess the Article 9 right to manifest religious belief (and, secondarily, A2P1) in determining whether the offered accommodation was suitable, contrary to the Homelessness Code’s requirement to consider human rights implications, and wrongly characterised faith schooling as not a "need".

Issues framed by the court. The central issues were whether the reviewing officer was required to identify and analyse Convention rights as a discrete legal task when assessing suitability; whether the officer had failed to have regard to Article 9 and A2P1 and the Homelessness Code (paras 1.20 and 1.28); and whether treating the parents' faith‑based preference for a single‑faith private school as not a "need" was an error of law.

Court’s reasoning and conclusion. The court reviewed the legislative framework: Part VII Housing Act 1996 (ss.193, 204, 206, 208, 210), the Homelessness (Suitability) Order 2012, the Homelessness Code, s.11 Children Act 2004 and the Human Rights Act 1998 (s.6). It considered authorities including Codona, Denbigh, Nzolameso and others on process and outcome. The court concluded that decision‑makers must identify and weigh relevant factors, including those that engage Convention rights, but are not required to perform a formal, textbook human rights analysis. Article 9 was engaged by the parents’ choice of a single‑faith school but, on the facts, there was no interference with Article 9 because the authority was not obliged to prioritise that preference in a way that displaced other relevant considerations. The reviewing officer had considered schooling, welfare, travel and financial pressures and reached a decision open to her. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding there was no error of law.

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that while human rights considerations (Article 9 and A2P1) may be a relevant factor when assessing suitability under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, a housing officer or reviewing officer is not required to carry out a formal, structured Convention rights analysis; human rights are respected through proper consideration of relevant factors and the outcome of the decision. On the facts the reviewing officer had adequately considered the schooling and welfare issues and there was no interference with Article 9.

Appeal from the Mayor’s and City of London Court (Recorder Deal KC) (review decision dated 3 March 2023). Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted by Nugee LJ on 12 September 2023. The Court of Appeal heard the appeal on 18 April 2024 and handed down judgment on 24 April 2024 ([2024] EWCA Civ 405).