Aref Hussaini v Islington London Borough Council

Under section 199 of the Housing Act 1996, a local connection must be real and based on normal residence, employment, family associations or special circumstances. In assessing special circumstances, an authority may consider whether the applicant needs to live in the district, and whether access to services requires proximity. However, the authority cannot make a need to live in the district a threshold requirement. Frequent use of services may support a local connection even where residence in the district is unnecessary. Review decisions should be read realistically and benevolently, while still showing that the relevant statutory and guidance matters were considered.

The appellant, an Afghan refugee, had attended the Baobab Centre in Islington frequently for therapy and support. He also worked for a charity in Islington and had a close friendship with a resident of the borough. The Council accepted that he was homeless and eligible for assistance but decided that he had no local connection with Islington and referred his application first to Barking and Dagenham and later to Haringey.

A reviewing officer confirmed that decision. The County Court at Central London dismissed the appellant’s statutory appeal. The appeal concerned whether the reviewing officer had imposed an impermissible requirement that the appellant needed to live in Islington, failed to consider his connections cumulatively, or reached an unreasonable conclusion.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal’s focus was the Review Decision rather than the County Court’s judgment. On a second appeal, the primary question is normally whether the original decision was correct or at least one which the decision-maker was entitled to reach: Danesh v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1404.
2. Under section 199 of the Housing Act 1996, local connection depends on a real connection with the district founded on normal residence, employment, family associations or special circumstances. In a special-circumstances case, the authority may consider whether the applicant needs to live in the district. That need may support a local connection, and its absence may make one less likely. Frequent use of special medical or support services may nevertheless establish a connection without a need to live in the district.
3. The authority cannot impose a threshold requirement that the applicant needs to live in the district. Nor can it require an essential compassionate, social or support need to live there. The wording of the Homelessness Code of Guidance, referring to the need to be near services available only in a particular district, does not justify such a requirement. This followed Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2001] QB 97 and [2001] UKHL 57.
4. Review decisions must be interpreted benevolently and practically, without a technical or nit-picking approach, but it must be clear that the relevant statutory and guidance matters were considered. The reviewing officer’s references to the absence of a need to live in Islington addressed the representations made on the appellant’s behalf. They did not establish that residence in Islington was a necessary condition. The officer also considered the circumstances as a whole and gave adequate reasons.
5. Local authorities have a substantial margin of appreciation when deciding whether special circumstances create a local connection. The reviewing officer did not exceed that margin or reach an unreasonable conclusion. The grounds alleging failure to consider the cumulative circumstances and unreasonableness therefore failed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2025] EWCA Civ 22, the appeal was dismissed.
2. County Court at Central London: His Honour Judge Saunders dismissed the appellant’s appeal in a judgment dated 14 November 2023.