News

Duncan Lewis Solicitors’ Housing Team has successfully represented a vulnerable refugee in a significant appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996, resulting in the quashing of a local authority’s decision to withdraw a section 184 homelessness decision rather than issuing a substantive review outcome.

A Section 184 homelessness letter is a formal written notification from a local authority to an applicant about their decision on a homelessness application. It's a legal requirement under the Housing Act 1996 and must inform the applicant of their rights, including the right to request a review of the decision. 

Background Facts of the Case

The Appellant, a Sudanese national granted refugee status in August 2023, suffers from serious and ongoing physical and mental health conditions, including the long-term effects of torture, chronic pain, gastrointestinal issues, and impaired vision. He applied for homelessness assistance from the Council in September 2023.

On 24 May 2024, the Council issued a section 184 decision stating that the Appellant was not in priority need. He requested a statutory review. However, rather than issuing a review outcome on the question of priority need, the Council notified the Appellant on 10 September 2024 that it had simply withdrawn the section 184 decision, providing no fresh determination in its place.

This left the applicant without a definitive decision and deprived him of the opportunity to challenge the Council’s conclusion on appeal. He issued a section 204 appeal, which came before Recorder Robertson in the County Court on 13 February 2025.

Two grounds were advanced on behalf of the Appellant:

1.Failure to Comply with the Review Regulations

The Council had breached regulation 7(2) of the Homelessness (Review Procedure, etc.) Regulations 2018 by failing to issue a “minded to” letter before withdrawing the original decision. The Appellant argued that the review process was procedurally unfair and contrary to the regulatory framework.

2.Unlawful Exercise of Review Powers

It was submitted that the Council had no legal power to simply withdraw a section 184 decision under review. We argued, on behalf of the Appellant, that the reviewing officer must either uphold the original decision or replace it with a new decision.

It was also noted that section 203(5) requires that a lawful review decision must notify the applicant of their right to appeal. A non-decision cannot trigger that right and thereby undermines the applicant’s legal protections.

The Court’s Decision

Recorder Robertson allowed the appeal on Ground 2, concluding that the Council had acted outside the scope of its statutory powers. Once a request for review had been made, the Council was legally obliged to determine the issue of priority need. The withdrawal of the original decision did not amount to a lawful review outcome.

The Court found that the effect of the Council’s actions was to deny the applicant access to justice under section 204. It quashed the purported review decision and ordered the Council to carry out a fresh review that complies with the statutory scheme.

Legal and Practical Implications

This decision, though not binding, provides important guidance for housing practitioners and local authorities alike. It reaffirms that

• The review officer must make a substantive decision when conducting a section 202 review
• Authorities cannot evade their obligations by withdrawing the decision under review without replacing it with a lawful determination
• Such conduct frustrates the legislative purpose of the review and appeal process, undermining the applicant’s statutory rights.

This case will be of particular interest to Housing Lawyers, especially where Councils attempt to delay or avoid proper decisions in complex homelessness cases.

Comment from Manjinder Kaur Atwal and Amandeep Bains:

“This case highlights an emerging and problematic practice by some local authorities who, rather than grappling with the issues raised on review, seek to avoid accountability by simply withdrawing their decision. The Court rightly found this to be unlawful. Vulnerable applicants deserve clear, fair, and lawful decision-making—nothing less.”

Housing Solicitor, Amandeep Bains and Caseworker, Huzaifa Naveed act for our Client, instructing Toby Vanhegan of 4-5 Grays Inn Square chambers.

About the Instructing Team

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.

Huzaifa Naveed is a Caseworker in our Housing department, based in the City of London office. Working under the supervision of Amandeep Bains, his responsibilities encompass a wide range of housing-related matters, including possession cases, homelessness issues, disrepair claims and judicial review proceedings.

For advice or assistance on a housing matter, contact Amandeep at AmandeepB@duncanlewis.com, or by telephone at 02072752843.

Duncan Lewis Solicitors

Duncan Lewis Solicitors is an award-winning law firm, renowned for its exceptional legal services and commitment to justice. The company employs a team of highly skilled solicitors offering top-tier representation in 25 fields of law, and ranked as top tier by the Chambers and the Legal 500 legal guides, and as one of the top 250 law firms in the country by the Times. Duncan Lewis was crowned Law Firm of the Year at the Modern Law Awards 2023, further establishing its credentials as one of the leading law firms in the UK.