Section 204A Homelessness Appeal Overturns Council’s Refusal to House Single Parent (22 November 2024)

Duncan Lewis successfully represented a single parent in overturning a Council’s decision to refuse accommodation for her and her children during an appeal under Section 204A of the Housing Act 1996.

However, the Judge declined to mandate the Council to provide accommodation while her housing appeal remains ongoing.

The Facts of the Case

The Appellant is a single mother of two young children. They have been ‘sofa surfing’ with

friends and acquaintances since their eviction by the Council on 19 July 2024, moving every one to two days. As a result, the children did not start school and have had critical medical appointments postponed. The Appellant herself suffers from chronic back pain.

In October 2023, the Council offered the Appellant accommodation pursuant their housing duty under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”). The Appellant challenged the suitability of the accommodation offered and, on 4 March 2024, the Council issued an adverse Review Decision finding that the property offered was suitable for the Appellant and her young children, and discharged their housing duty towards them. The Appellant lodged an appeal (“the Main Appeal”), which advanced five grounds of appeal against the Review Decision.

The Council evicted the Appellant on 19 July 2024

Although trying to make alternative arrangements herself, the Appellant was unable to secure any accommodation for her and her children. On 21 August 2024, the Appellant’s representatives requested that the Council provide her and her children accommodation pending a determination on the Main Appeal. On the same day, the Council refused that request.

On 10 September 2024, the Appellant appealed to the County Court pursuant to section 204A of the Act challenging the Council’s refusal to exercise its powers to provide accommodation pending determination of the Main Appeal (“the S204A Appeal”). The S204A Appeal advanced two grounds– (1) The Council’s failure to consider properly the merits of the Main Appeal and (2) The Council’s failure to consider the Appellant’s personal circumstances. The Appellant sought for the decision to be quashed, and a mandatory order requiring the Council to provide accommodation pending the outcome of the Main Appeal.

On 25 October 2024, the S204A Appeal came before His Honour Judge Hellman. The Court quashed the decision; however, it declined the grant mandatory order sought by the Appellant on the basis that it would not substantially prejudice the Appellant’s ability to pursue the Main Appeal.

Following the hearing, some interesting questions arose for the Court- what would be the effect of the quashing order made by the Judge, and what (if any) further order beyond the quashing the decision the Court was empowered to make. The Judge invited written submissions from both the Appellant and Council on this issue. These were put before the Court on 1 November 2024.

The Council sought to argue that, whilst the decision could be quashed and remitted back to allow them to make a new decision, it’s practical application would be academic given the Court’s finding that refusing to provide accommodation to the Appellant would not substantially prejudice the Appellant’s ability to pursue the Main Appeal.

The Appellant averred that it was well within the Court’s powers to quash a decision under appeal, and make a mandatory order or injunction requiring the Council to issue a new decision within a specified time. As the decision had been found unlawful and, subsequently, quashed, it meant a decision ceased to exist/have legal effect. Consequently, the Council were required to give a new, lawful decision on the request for accommodation.

The Judge ultimately accepted the Appellant’s submission and remitted the decision back to the Council for redetermination; however, the Judge did not order the Council to provide their decision by a specified time.

Accordingly, it is clear that the County Court can quash and remit decisions back the Council for redetermination in appeals brought under section 204 of the Act. Further, the Court made no objection to the finding that it was able to make a mandatory order or injunction requiring a Council to issue a new decision within a specified time. It is hoped further appeals on the point may clarify this; however, there is nothing to suggest it is not a remedy available to any appellant.

Representation:  Housing Solicitor, Amandeep Bains  acts for our Client, instructing Ahmed Osman and Daniel Grütters of One Pump Court chambers.

About the Author

Amandeep Bains is a housing solicitor at Duncan Lewis. He acts for both tenants and landlords, publicly and privately funded, in a range of cases, including homelessness cases, possession proceedings, suitability reviews, housing litigation, eviction proceedings, disrepair claims, harassment issues, injunction proceedings, and judicial review applications.

Amandeep works under housing and property litigation director Manjinder Kaur Atwal, who has more than 15 years’ experience in her field. Manjinder is a highly regarded housing and property law solicitor, recommended in the Legal 500 directory for her expertise and client-focused approach. She handles a broad range of housing and property dispute cases, including possession claims, eviction matters, landlord and tenant disputes, homelessness issues, housing disrepair claims, appeals against local authority housing decisions, boundary disputes, and property nuisance or negligence cases.

For advice in any property law matter, contact Amandeep at AmandeepB@duncanlewis.com, or by telephone at 02072752843