News

A homelessness appeal has been allowed on behalf of a Duncan Lewis client who was placed in unsuitable accommodation. Failure to provide minded to letter, breach of section 193 Housing Act 1996 and failure to consider key document arguments accepted by judge in Querino v Cambridge City Council. By way of background, the client approached his local authority, Cambridge City Council, in or around January 2022 for housing assistance. Following inquiries into his application, the Council accepted the main housing duty to him in July 2022. On or around September 2022, the council made the client a final offer of accommodation. This was a Part VI social housing offer. The client accepted the offer, moved in and with our 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 will have shared access to. We had 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 client’s right to an appeal by filing an appeal within 21 days of the review decision, which was then issued and the court provided directions for parties to comply by. The appeal was listed for an all day hearing at Cambridge County Court on Wednesday, 29 March, 2022. During the hearing, Counsel for the client raised four grounds of appeal, as below: 1. 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 officer reached a decision without taking into account relevant information including a CAFCASS report, which strongly supported the client’s review. 2. The council’s offer was in breach of section 193(7F)(a) as the council could not be satisfied that the client could end his existing contractual obligations in relation to his temporary accommodation provided by the council before being required to take up the Part VI offer. The council had no information before them to state when he could terminate his temporary accommodation and when the tenancy will commence, as the offer letter did not state a start date for the tenancy. 3. The council wrongly excluded fundamental supporting documentation i.e. the CAFCASS report. The council failed to notify the client of their reasons for not considering the supporting documentation. Had they notified him of their minded to decision, the client could have taken necessary steps to obtain any consent required. 4. The reviews officer failed to apply the correct legal test when considering the suitability of the property. Counsel raised that section 176 HA ’96 states that accommodation shall only be regarded as available for a person's occupation if it is available for occupation by him together with any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him at the accommodation. The test is therefore “reasonably be expected to reside” however, the council applied a much higher test of "exceptional circumstances" from their internal policy. In response to the above, counsel for the council disputed that that the decision on review is lawful as there was no deficiency or irregularity as all issues were dealt with within the decision letter. Secondly, it was argued that when the client moves in to the new property, he is no longer liable by the licence agreement, instead by the secure tenancy he accepted. The licence does not continue and he was able to hand back the keys to the temporary accommodation any time, which is what he did. Counsel also argued that in the cases of Norton and Zaman, it was in relation to a private rented sector offer rather than a social housing offer so these cases cannot be relied on. In terms of Ground 3, counsel reiterated that the issues of suitability were dealt with within the review decision and finally argued that, in relation to Ground 4, it was not reasonable for the client’s daughters to reside with him as they had accommodation elsewhere. Counsel further argued that the correct test was applied and the council’s internal policy was dealt with. The matter was heard by Judge Moloney at the hearing. After considering both submissions, Jude Moloney delivered judgment finding that the appeal is allowed on Grounds 1, 2 and 3. Judge Moloney confirmed that the reviews officer erred on a point of law in relation to Ground 1. In terms of Ground 2, the Judge found that the burden of proof is on the local authority that the offer complies with statutory requirements. The local authority remains under an obligation to house an applicant. Thirdly, the local authority was wrong to exclude the CAFCASS report without applying to the Court. The reviews officer made a serious error in law and the appeal was allowed on Ground 3. Finally, the judge found that Ground 4 cannot be upheld. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with permission to rely on the CAFCASS report and the Council to pay the client’s costs. This was a great outcome for the client! 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. Counsel Toby Vanhegan from 4-5 Gray’s Inn was instructed on behalf of the client and counsel, Mr Iain Colville, also from 4-5 Gray’s Inn was instructed on behalf of the council.