Daisy Simpson, R (on the application of) v Brentwood Borough Council

An offer of accommodation as temporary accommodation, expressly made without a secure or introductory tenancy, is not an “allocation” under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996. A local housing authority’s duty to inquire under Part VII may arise without a formal homelessness application where it has reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. Suitability challenges to accommodation offered under Part VII must ordinarily proceed through the statutory review and appeal mechanism under sections 202 and 204. Judicial review permission will be refused where the proposed grounds lack a realistic prospect of success or are procedurally inappropriate.

The claimant, a severely disabled tenant of Brentwood Borough Council, challenged the Council’s offer of Rowan Green East. She argued that the offer was an allocation under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996, that the Council had unlawfully assessed suitability, and that its decision breached public law and Convention duties.

The Council maintained that the offer was temporary accommodation made under Part VII. It later determined that the claimant was homeless for statutory purposes and owed her the accommodation duty under section 193(2). The issue at the renewal hearing was whether the claim had an arguable basis with a realistic prospect of success.

1. Permission refused. None of the claimant’s grounds had a realistic prospect of success. The claim was certified as totally without merit.
2. Under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996, where the accommodation is owned by the local housing authority, an “allocation” requires the grant of a secure or introductory tenancy. The January 2024 offer was expressly temporary accommodation and created neither form of tenancy. It therefore could not be an allocation under Part VI or the Council’s allocation scheme.
3. The absence of a formal homelessness application did not prevent the Council from acting under Part VII. Under section 184, the duty to inquire arises when the authority has reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. Bury MBC v Gibbons confirmed that a housing application may trigger that duty.
4. The claimant’s challenge to suitability was governed by the statutory route under sections 202 and 204 of the Housing Act 1996: first a review, followed by a statutory appeal on a point of law. No review had been requested and no appeal pursued. Judicial review was therefore inappropriate for that challenge.
5. The Convention grounds failed for the same reasons. In any event, the claim had become academic following the Council’s later decision under section 184.
6. The interested party, Essex County Council, was discharged. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, subject to the usual protection for publicly funded litigants.