Rabah Ghaoui v London Borough of Waltham Forest

Suitability of accommodation under Part VII is a practical, fact-sensitive evaluation. The decision-maker must identify relevant factors and give them appropriate weight within the statutory and guidance framework. Convention rights engaged by the circumstances require full and proper consideration, but the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Homelessness Code do not require officers to identify possible violations or follow a structured human-rights analysis. Lawfulness depends on the outcome, not formal process. A religiously motivated choice of single-faith school does not require particular weight or accommodation near that school. Treating it as less important than the applicant considered it to be may be lawful where the issue has been considered.

The appellant’s family became homeless after losing privately rented accommodation. The respondent provided accommodation in Harlow and later offered a fixed-term private tenancy there. The appellant argued that the location was unsuitable because it made attendance at his children’s single-faith school and the parents’ workplaces more difficult. He relied on Article 9, Article 2 of the First Protocol and the Homelessness Code. The reviewing officer found the accommodation suitable, and the Mayor’s and City of London Court dismissed the appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996. Although the family later obtained private accommodation, the appeal proceeded because of its wider public importance. The central issue was the proper approach to human-rights considerations in assessing suitability.

Appeal dismissed. The appeal concerned the lawfulness of the review decision, rather than a reassessment of the recorder’s judgment.

1. Suitability under Part VII requires the decision-maker to identify all relevant factors and give them the weight considered appropriate in professional judgment. The decision is practical and rooted in the individual circumstances, although it is guided by the primary and secondary legislation and the Homelessness Code. The obligation is to reach a sound decision, not to carry out a legal analysis.

2. Where a homelessness decision engages a Convention right, the decision-maker must address the substance of the relevant issue. Paragraph 1.20 of the Homelessness Code does not require officers to identify Convention rights and potential violations, or to follow a prescribed structured process. Following R (SB) v Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15, human-rights compatibility is assessed by reference to the outcome rather than the formal quality of the decision-making process.

3. Codona v Mid-Bedfordshire District Council [2004] EWCA Civ 925 did not require Convention-related factors to receive undue or predominant weight. Its references to special consideration and an Article 8 gloss meant that such factors must receive full and proper consideration as part of the ordinary suitability assessment.

4. The appellant’s religiously motivated choice of a single-faith school could be treated as relevant, but Article 9 did not entitle him to particular weight being given to it or to accommodation near that school. The offer’s effect on the convenience of attending the school did not amount to an interference with Article 9 in this case. Justification therefore did not arise; in any event, securing priority over other homeless persons would likely have been impossible to establish.

5. The reviewing officer had considered schooling at considerable length. Her conclusion that single-faith education was not a need did not disregard the issue, but reflected her judgment that it was less important to suitability than the appellant claimed. The decision was plainly open to her. The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2024] EWCA Civ 405. Appeal dismissed.
• Mayor’s and City of London Court: Recorder Deal KC dismissed the section 204 appeal on 3 March 2023 and confirmed the review decision.