London Borough of Bromley v Celisa Broderick
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Newey,Lord Justice Baker,Lord Justice Flaux |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWCA Civ 1522 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B5/2019/0293 |
| Date | 16 November 2020 |
[2020] EWCA Civ 1522
Lord Justice Flaux
Lord Justice Newey
and
Lord Justice Baker
Case No: B5/2019/0293
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT CENTRAL LONDON
His Honour Judge Lamb QC
Claim No. E40CL109
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Jon Holbrook (instructed by Legal Services, London Borough of Bromley) for the Appellant
Mr Edward J. Fitzpatrick and Miss Sophie Caseley (instructed by Deton Solicitors) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 22 October 2020
Approved Judgment
This appeal concerns the implications of the refusal by the respondent, Miss Celisa Broderick, of an offer of accommodation made by the appellant, the London Borough of Bromley (“the Council”). The Council notified Miss Broderick that it regarded the duty which it had owed her under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) as having ceased as a result of the refusal. His Honour Judge Lamb QC allowed an appeal by Miss Broderick, but the Council now challenges Judge Lamb's decision in this Court.
Basic facts
In 2017, Miss Broderick returned to Bromley from Leicester, in which she had lived for a number of years, fleeing domestic abuse. In the latter part of the year, she and her son, who were then aged respectively 29 and four, were living in a refuge run by Bromley and Croydon Women's Aid.
On 4 December 2017, the Council wrote to inform Miss Broderick that she was considered to be unintentionally homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need and that the Council therefore had a duty to ensure that accommodation was available for her occupation until a settled housing solution was found. In other words, the Council accepted that it owed what has been termed the “main homelessness duty” under section 193(2) of the 1996 Act. However, the Council's letter went on to note that its duty to Miss Broderick would end if she refused an offer of suitable accommodation.
On 19 December 2017, the Council offered Miss Broderick temporary accommodation at 186A Richmond Road, Gillingham, Kent. The letter warned Miss Broderick that, if she refused the offer, the Council would have discharged its duty to re-house her and that no further offers of any sort would be made. Having explained that Miss Broderick was entitled to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation, the Council said this:
“We would strongly advise you to move in to the property …, even if you intend to request a review of suitability. This will ensure that you still have somewhere to live if you are unsuccessful with your review.
If you refuse to move into the property and your review request is unsuccessful, you will be left in a very difficult position as the Council would no longer provide you with any accommodation at all.
If you do move in and request a review, and your review request is successful, we will make you another offer.”
186A Richmond Road is a two-bedroom maisonette managed by Mears Housing Group. Gillingham, in which it is situated, is some 30 miles from Bromley. There is a frequent train service between the two, with a journey time of about 35 minutes. The property was being refurbished as at 19 December 2017, but it was to be ready for occupation by 12 January 2018.
On 3 January 2018, Miss Broderick emailed Miss Esha Pisani, the relevant housing allocations officer, expressing concern about the distance between 186A Richmond Road and her and her son's support networks. She explained that she suffered from anxiety and depression and had a hearing impairment. She said, too, that her former partner had moved to London, “making it even more important why I should be within a reasonable distance of some kind of support network”. She asked that, if she had to be sent out of Bromley, housing be found for her in Bexley, where her sister lived.
Miss Pisani emailed back at 11.56 am that she nonetheless considered 186A Richmond Road to be suitable accommodation. She observed that Miss Broderick could transfer to a hospital closer to 186A Richmond Road and that her son was not at critical school age. She gave Miss Broderick until 4 pm that afternoon to arrange to view the property.
At 12.27 pm the next day, Miss Broderick was given a revised deadline, of 3 pm that day. Miss Broderick was also advised by telephone that it was in her interests to accept the property and she could do so as well as requesting a review.
On 10 January 2018, Bromley and Croydon Women's Aid sent Miss Pisani an email in these terms:
“Celisa is quite distressed at the thought of moving to Gillingham. I have explained that Bromley have no Housing stock etc, Celisa does understand this and this is not a refusal of the property, however I just wanted to ask could you consider maybe looking in the Erith/Dartford area before she signs up to the Gillingham property?”
On 15 January, Citizens Advice Bromley wrote to the Council on Miss Broderick's behalf asking that the Council withdraw its existing offer and provide Miss Broderick with accommodation “in close proximity to her family members in Bromley, Bexley and Croydon”.
On 26 January 2018, Miss Pisani gave Miss Broderick a final deadline to arrange to move into 186A Richmond Road by 5 pm on 29 January. Miss Pisani said in her email that the Council would not be able to keep the property open to Miss Broderick as it was ready to let and that, if she failed to move in, the Council would consider ceasing its duty under section 193 of the 1996 Act.
On 29 January 2018, however, Miss Broderick told the Council that she would not be accepting its offer. Her mother confirmed the position in an email, saying:
“Celisa will not be accepting property. She is depressed as it is and further she's away from her family she will sink into further depression. She has said and confirmed she can not cope being so far away with her son. As stated I am also concerned for her emotional wellbeing.”
It appears that, up to this point, Miss Broderick had continued to live within the borough, seemingly at the refuge run by Bromley and Croydon Women's Aid.
On 7 February 2018, the Council told Miss Broderick in a letter that its duty towards her had ceased. It said in the letter:
“In view of the above, for the purposes of subsection (5) of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996, as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002, as a result of your refusal, the duty to re-house you as a homeless person has ended. No further offers will be made to you and you will need to make your own arrangements.”
The author expressed the view that it would have been reasonable to make arrangements for Miss Broderick's son to start at school in the Gillingham area in September, that Miss Broderick could have transferred to a local hospital to obtain care for her hearing impairment, that Miss Broderick's sister would still have had reasonable access to her and that Miss Broderick would have had good links to Bromley via public transport.
On 16 February 2018, Citizens Advice Bromley wrote on Miss Broderick's behalf requesting a review of the Council's discharge of duty decision. There followed, on 1 March, a letter from Deton Solicitors, whom Miss Broderick had instructed.
On 6 April 2018, the reviewing officer, Mrs Kristine Ross, notified Miss Broderick that she was satisfied that 186A Richmond Road was a suitable offer and, accordingly, that the Council's duty to her had come to an end. Mrs Ross explained in the decision letter that, in carrying out her review, she had taken into account, among other things, the representations from Citizens Advice Bromley and Deton Solicitors and “Enquiries made with the Council's allocations team as to what temporary accommodation units were available on 19 December 2017”. She also referred to a telephone conversation which she had had with Miss Broderick. Having noted that “the substantive matter in contention … is not the accommodation itself in terms of size, layout, cost or condition, but rather its location and in particular its distance from the Bromley Borough” and cited both the “Homelessness Code of Guidance” and the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012, Mrs Ross said this:
...“Whilst having full regard to the legislative framework it must be acknowledged that there is a social housing crisis in the district of Bromley. By way of illustration, as of today's date 3550 households are registered for housing within the authority's allocations scheme, with average waiting times for two bedroom properties being between 3.5 and 4 years. In addition the authority has some 1,300 households living in some form of temporary accommodation. The Council's most current temporary accommodation advice literature states that the majority of temporary accommodation is located outside of the Borough.
At the date that the local authority was required to offer you temporary accommodation, there were no self-contained long term units of accommodation available within the Borough of Bromley which could have been offered to you which is why you and a number of other households, on that same day, were offered accommodation in Kent. As of 19 December 2017 when Bromley Council were required to offer you accommodation it had the following properties available to allocate as temporary accommodation.
1. A three bedroom house in Kitchener Road in Medway
2. A single room in Bower Terrace in Maidstone
3. A two bedroom house in Wingfield Road in Gravesham
4. 186a Richmond Road in Gillingham
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Katie-Leigh Webb-Harnden v London Borough of Waltham Forest
...43 To like effect is the observation of Newey LJ at paragraph 42 of his judgment in Broderick v Bromley London Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1522, [2021] PTSR 477 that: “I would think, however, that it would be relatively rare for an authority's decision to make an offer on a particular......
-
Sahra Moge v London Borough of Ealing
...2021 from Ms. Khan to Mr. Obe set out in paragraph 49 above. 60 On Ground 4, the Judge held, referring to Broderick v Bromley LBC [2020] EWCA Civ 1522, [2021] HLR 19 at [43], that the reviewing officer had to consider the question of the suitability of the accommodation at the date of the ......
-
Shamso Abdikadir v London Borough of Ealing
...of suitable accommodation is to be decided as at the date of the offer unless it is an exceptional case: Bromley LBC v Broderick [2020] EWCA Civ 1522, [2021] PTSR 477. The key point in the policy is that acquisition officers liaise with accommodation providers and check relevant websites ......
-
Joseph Kyle v Coventry City Council
...an extent determined by what has been said in the course of the review can also be seen from Alibkhiet v Brent London Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1522, [2021] PTSR 477 (“ Alibkhiet”). It had there been argued that it was not clear from a review decision relating to a Ms Adam why the l......