Socrattes Ofori-Addo v London Borough of Haringey

A review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 is confined to the particular statutory decision or decisions identified in the applicant’s request. A request to review the suitability of a final accommodation offer under section 202(1)(h) does not require a local authority to reconsider every actual or potential housing duty owed to the applicant.

An appeal under section 204 is correspondingly confined to a point of law arising from the decision made on that review. If an authority has failed to make a required decision about the duty owed, the appropriate remedy is judicial review. If it has made such a decision, the applicant must seek a review of it under the appropriate limb of section 202.

The appellant, a single mother of two disabled children, refused a final accommodation offer made while the respondent owed her the homelessness relief duty. She requested a review solely of the suitability of the offered property under section 202(1)(h) of the Housing Act 1996.

The respondent’s review decision of 7 June 2023 upheld the suitability of the accommodation. It also stated that the relief duty had ended and that the main housing duty did not apply. The County Court sitting at Central London, HHJ Saggerson, dismissed the appellant’s statutory appeal on 10 October 2023.

On the second appeal, the appellant did not challenge the suitability finding. She contended that the reviewing officer had to decide whether any further duty, in particular a duty to an intentionally homeless applicant with priority need, was owed under Part VII.

1. Appeal dismissed. Stuart-Smith LJ, with whom Cobb J and Nicola Davies LJ agreed, held that the review was confined to the decision whose review the appellant had requested: the suitability of the final accommodation offer under section 202(1)(h) of the Housing Act 1996.

2. Section 202 does not confer a blanket right to a general reconsideration of all aspects of a local authority’s dealings with an applicant. It identifies distinct decisions that may be reviewed. A decision about the suitability of a particular property is materially different from a decision about eligibility or the nature and extent of any duty owed. An applicant may request reviews of both decisions, and they may be considered together, but must identify both.

3. The statutory consequences of refusing the final offer were not in dispute. The relief duty ended and the main housing duty did not apply under section 193A. The court accepted the respondent’s concession that this did not necessarily end the homelessness application or preclude a further decision about another duty. That possibility did not enlarge the scope of the suitability review.

4. Ravichandran v Lewisham LBC [2010] EWCA Civ 755 supported the possibility of concurrent reviews. Temur v Hackney LBC [2014] EWCA Civ 877, properly read, concerned reconsideration of the particular decision as to the duty owed under section 202(1)(b). It did not require a wholesale reconsideration where a review had instead been requested under section 202(1)(h).

5. Under section 204, the County Court could determine only a point of law arising from the decision on the review sought. If the respondent had failed to make a decision under section 184 about any residual duty, that failure was challengeable by judicial review. If it had made such a decision, the appellant’s route was to request a review under section 202(1)(a) or (b). Neither route had been pursued. Both grounds of appeal therefore failed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The appellant’s second appeal was dismissed: [2025] EWCA Civ 277.
• County Court sitting at Central London. HHJ Saggerson dismissed the statutory appeal on 10 October 2023.