Sian Ivory v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council

A local housing authority may treat a successive homelessness application as no application only where it is identical in substance to the earlier application, disregarding only trivial facts or fanciful allegations. The earlier application includes all material relied on before its final disposal. Significant fresh evidence supporting an assertion previously made, even if rejected, can prevent the later application from being identical. There is no rigid distinction between fresh facts and fresh evidence.

The authority must not investigate the accuracy or merits of a non-trivial later application at the initial stage. It must instead accept the application and conduct the statutory inquiries under the Housing Act 1996.

Ms Ivory had previously been found intentionally homeless after eviction for rent arrears. A review officer rejected her account that mental ill health had prevented her from managing her tenancy. Her statutory appeal to the County Court was dismissed.

Ms Ivory then made a further homelessness application supported by a consultant psychiatrist's report. The report concluded that she had suffered serious mental disorders in 2015 and 2016 and had lacked capacity to keep her tenancy. The Council refused to accept the application, considering the report to repeat matters already advanced.

Permission for judicial review was refused in the High Court. Newey LJ subsequently granted permission and retained the claim in the Court of Appeal. The issues were whether the report gave rise to a fresh application, whether the Council's inquiries into it were permissible, and whether relief should be withheld for abuse.

Claim for judicial review allowed. The Court unanimously quashed the Council's refusal to accept the September 2023 application.

1. The narrow judge-made exception to the mandatory duties in Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 permits an authority to treat a later application as no application only if it is identical to the earlier one. The authority cannot impose a preliminary test requiring a change capable of producing a different ultimate outcome: Fahia and Rikha Begum establish that the exception is confined to very limited circumstances.

2. Males LJ, with whom Phillips LJ agreed, held that the relevant comparison is between the substance of the earlier and later applications. The earlier application includes all matters relied on up to final disposal. A later application may be rejected only if identical, or if its additional matters are trivial or fanciful. Significant fresh evidence supporting a previously advanced and rejected factual assertion can make the later application different. Newey LJ reached the same result by comparing newly asserted facts with facts previously found, but that formulation did not command the majority.

3. The psychiatrist's independent expert report was significant fresh evidence. It was neither trivial nor fanciful, even though it addressed an allegation previously made. Whether it ultimately disproved intentional homelessness was a Stage 2 merits issue requiring inquiries under section 184.

4. At Stage 1 the Council could not investigate the accuracy of the report or seek to test the basis of the psychiatrist's conclusions. Those inquiries belonged to Stage 2. The officer's reliance on the absence of answers to his questions was therefore reliance on an irrelevant consideration.

5. Relief was not barred by abuse. The report post-dated the review decision and there was good reason not to seek to introduce it in the earlier County Court appeal. The Council must undertake the section 184 inquiries, using an officer other than Mr Trewick.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Newey LJ granted permission for judicial review and retained the claim. The Court allowed the claim and quashed the Council's refusal: [2025] EWCA Civ 21.
• High Court: A Deputy High Court Judge refused permission on the papers on 6 October 2023. A renewed oral application was refused by another Deputy High Court Judge on 21 November 2023.
• County Court: Her Honour Judge Bloom dismissed Ms Ivory's statutory homelessness appeal on 3 August 2023.
• Local housing authority review: On 27 January 2023, the review officer upheld the finding that Ms Ivory was intentionally homeless.