Housing Solicitors

The Court of Appeal will hear an important suitability case early 2024 after a homelessness appeal was granted.

Our client initially approached the local authority, Cambridge City Council, around January 2022 for housing assistance. Following inquiries into his application, the Council accepted the main housing duty to him in July 2022.

In or around September 2022, the Council made a final offer of accommodation to our client. This was a Part VI social housing offer. The client accepted the offer, moved in, and with our advice and assistance, requested a review of the suitability on the basis that there is insufficient space at the property to enable his three daughters to reside overnight, with whom he shares access. We argued the client’s case by submitting detailed representations on review explaining why the client considers the accommodation unsuitable for his needs.

In November 2022, the Council’s reviewing officer had issued a decision concluding that the property was suitable for the client. This decision gave rise to a statutory appeal on a point of law. We then exercised the client's right to appeal by filing an appeal within 21 days of the review decision, which was then issued at the County Court and the court provided directions for parties to comply with.

Following the hearing and judgment delivered on 29 March 2023, a homelessness appeal was granted.

Counsel for our client, Mr Toby Vanhegan from 4-5 Gray’s Inn, raised the following grounds in the initial appeal:

• The review was carried out in breach of Regulation 7(2) of the Homelessness (Review Procedure, etc.) Regulations 2018 SI No. 223 as the reviews officer did not send a "minded to" letter;

• The Council’s offer was in breach of section 193(7F)(a) as the Council could not be satisfied that client could end his existing contractual obligations in relation to his temporary accommodation provided by the Council before being required to take up a permanent offer of accommodation;

• The Council wrongly excluded fundamental supporting documentation i.e. the CAFCASS report; and

• The Reviews Officer failed to apply the correct legal test when considering the suitability of the property.

Whilst four grounds were raised on behalf of our client, the appeal was allowed on three grounds.

Following the decision in March 2023, the Council sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Appellant (Cambridge City Council) appeals on the below grounds:

• The Judge erred in finding that Reg.7(2) was engaged. The Appellant is of the view that even if Reg. 7(2) was engaged, since the Appellant’s Reviews Officer had already considered whether the original decision was not deficient or irregular, the decision to not serve a “minded to” decision was not unlawful.

• The Council failed to comply with the statutory requirements of 193(8). S.193(8) required the Appellant to ascertain when the licence to occupy the temporary accommodation they provided under s.188(1) could be terminated in order to take up the social tenancy offered.

• Moreover, pursuant to s.193(8), where the authority are both the licensor of the temporary accommodation provided and the owner of the Part 6 accommodation offered, there can be no circumstances where “the applicant is not able to bring [his excluded licence] to an end before being required to take up the offer”.

• The Judge wrongly concluded that if the CAFCASS report had been taken into account the same decision would not necessarily be made. The Appellant considers the approach taken by the Council was reasonable in the Wednesbury sense. The Appellant appealed on the basis that there are real prospects of success, and the appeal raises important points of principle and practice. After much anticipation, Newey LJ heard the appeal on papers and granted Cambridge City Council permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal of the lower Court’s decision.

This appeal raises an important point of principle as to the impact of section 193(7F) and (8) of the Housing Act 1996. The issues within the appeal demonstrate the complexity of the case. The issues concern how local authorities form their offers of Part 6 accommodation. Furthermore, disclosure of the CAFCASS report remains hugely important and there appears to be no prior authority on this point.

This Court of Appeal case is conducted by Director Manjinder Kaur Atwal, Solicitor Daljit Singh Shina and Trainee Solicitor Retha Khan of the Housing Department.

Counsel Toby Vanhegan from 4-5 Gray’s Inn was instructed on behalf of the client (Respondent) and counsel, Mr Iain Colville, also from 4-5 Gray’s Inn, instructed on behalf of the Council (Appellant).

About the Author:

Retha Khan is a trainee solicitor in the housing department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors, based at the Head Office in the City of London. She has wide-ranging housing law experience, and has assisted numerous clients in relation to homelessness, disrepair and possession claims. Contact her for advice via email at RethaK@duncanlewis.com or telephone on 020 3114 1147.

Retha works under housing and property litigation director Manjinder Kaur Atwal, who has more than 15 years’ experience in her field. She is recommended in the Legal 500 directory and tackles a wide variety of housing and property law dispute cases, including possession claims and eviction matters, landlord and tenant disputes, homelessness, housing disrepair, appeals relating to local authority housing decisions, boundary disputes, property nuisance/negligence claims and much more.