Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD SLYNN OF HADLEY,LORD STEYN,LORD HOFFMANN,LORD HUTTON,LORD HOBHOUSE OF WOODBOROUGH |
| Judgment Date | 01 November 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] UKHL 57 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 01 November 2001 |
[2001] UKHL 57
HOUSE OF LORDS
Lord Slynn of Hadley
Lord Steyn
Lord Hoffmann
Lord Hutton
Lord Hobhouse
My Lords,
This appeal raises questions under the Housing Act 1996 ("the Act") which Henry LJ in the Court of Appeal below [2001] QB 97, 101, para 1 said frequently arose but had not then been resolved by that court. The answers to those questions have important consequences for those who are homeless and who have priority needs; they are no less important for those authorities who are said to be responsible for providing accommodation and who may have applicants with competing needs but insufficient accommodation or finances to provide for all who apply for somewhere to live.
The statutory provisions can be summarised shortly. A person who contends that he is homeless with priority needs and eligible for assistance may apply to a local housing authority. The authority receiving such an application must by virtue of section 184 of the Act inquire as to the applicant's eligibility for assistance and must inquire as to what if any duty is owed to that person. The authority may then decide or refuse to provide accommodation but it has also the option of inquiring whether the applicant has a local connection with the district of another housing authority. If they consider that he has but has no connection with its own authority then that authority may refer the application to the other authority.
By section 193, if after inquiry the local housing authority "are satisfied that an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need, and are not satisfied that he became homeless intentionally" they must "secure that accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant" for a minimum period of two years unless they "refer the application to another local housing authority".
If a local housing authority would be liable to provide accommodation but consider that the conditions are met for referral of the case to another local housing authority they may notify that other authority of their opinion (section 198).
The relevant conditions by virtue of section 198 are that:
"(a) neither the applicant nor any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him has a local connection with the district of the authority to whom his application was made,
(b) the applicant or a person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him has a local connection with the district of that other authority …"
By section 199(1):
"A person has a local connection with the district of a
local housing authority if he has a connection with it—
(a)because he is, or in the past was, normally resident there, and that residence is or was of his own choice,
(b)because he is employed there,
(c)because of family associations, or
(d)because of special circumstances."
The authority's decision to notify another authority that conditions are met for a referral to the latter authority is subject to review by virtue of section 202 (1) and regulations may be made under section 203 of the Act to provide for the procedure to be followed on such a review.
By virtue of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures and Amendment) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/3122) in force at the time, it was provided that the review should be conducted by an officer senior to the one who took the decision and that it should be carried out "on the basis of facts known to them at the date of the review" (regulation 8): the latter was deleted from the 1999 regulations, the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/71).
By section 204 of the Act an applicant dissatisfied with the decision on the review may appeal to the county court on a point of law and the county court may confirm, quash or vary the decision.
Although Mr Mohamed is the respondent he is not the only person concerned by the appeal. His wife, Mrs Farah, and two sons left Somalia during the civil war in 1992 and went to Kenya. In 1994 Mrs Farah came to England though without their sons. She lived most of the time in flats in Ealing until in January 1998 she moved to live with a friend at an address in the appellant authority's district. The respondent came to England on 31 January 1998 and although in contact with his wife he lived with a friend in the authority's district. On 16 April 1998 they jointly asked the appellant authority for accommodation and were given temporary accommodation first in an hotel and then in a flat in the authority's district. On 11 May they made their formal application as being homeless under the provisions of the Act to which I have referred. On 23 July 1998 the authority told Mrs Farah that they accepted a duty to arrange accommodation for her but that, although she had a local connection with Ealing where she had lived, she had no connection with the appellant authority and on 27 July the applications of both the respondent and his wife were referred to Ealing London Borough Council on the basis that they appeared to have a local connection with Ealing but not with the appellant authority's district. Representations were made to the appellant authority on behalf of both applicants against this decision and a formal application was made for a review of the decision to refer the matter to Ealing.
The reviewing officer by letter of 23 September 1998 said that having considered all the matters set out in letters sent on behalf of the applicants during August and in the light of the outcome of the council's inquiries prior to the decision under review he was satisfied to uphold the decision to refer. He said:
"I am satisfied to uphold the decision to refer as I am satisfied that neither Mr Mohamed nor Ms Farah have a local connection with this authority, that Ms Farah has a local connection with Ealing London Borough Council via her lengthy previous normal residence there, that neither would be at risk of domestic or other violence in that area and that there are no grounds on which the council could exercise our discretionary power not to refer the application".
He did not consider that the respondent's residence in the borough between 31 January and 17 April 1998 was sufficient to give rise to "a local connection in real terms". He did not accept that the existence of relatives in the borough or the need for medical treatment in these two cases established a local connection in view of the proximity of the two boroughs and the ease of passing from one to the other to visit a hospital.
He concluded:
"I have also considered the cumulative effect of all of these various factors but I am not satisfied that the household's stated need to live in this borough is an essential compassionate, social or support need or that this is a significant factor to the household's medical wellbeing sufficient to give rise to a local connection with this authority in real terms.
"I have also considered whether there are any grounds on which this authority could exercise our residual power of discretion not to maintain the referral to Ealing but, for the same reasons as set out in this letter and taking into account the competing demands for the council's limited housing resources including the housing needs of other households accepted for a section 193 duty who have a local connection with ourselves, I am satisfied that there are no grounds on which to exercise our discretion not to refer".
There was then an appeal to the West London County Court which dismissed the appeal on 17 June 1999. It was Judge Richard Walker's view that the reviewing officer had not erred in law. His reference to there having to be a local connection "in real terms" did not set too high a standard. There had to be a real local connection rather than an artificial or fanciful one. The judge took the view that "the duty of the review is to give fresh consideration to the original application" and that it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Desnousse v Newham London Borough Council and Others
...of the Protection from Eviction Act, apart (perhaps) from the effect of Mohamed v. Manek. 49 Mr Arden relied on Mohamed v. Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2001] UKHL 57, [2002] 1 AC 547 to show that a person who is living in accommodation which has been made available by a ......
-
Amanda Magret Landsberg and Eben Arnoldis Breetzke v Road Safety Authority, The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport the Attorney General Ireland
...of the Regulations, is a question of fact (reliance being placed on para. 18 of the decision in Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2002] 1 AC 547 and para. 40 of the decision in U.M. (a Minor). The Commission emphasised that the definition of normal residence in the 2006 Regulations make......
-
Al-Almeri v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council; Osmani v Harrow London Borough Council. Glasgow City Council, intervening
...own choice". Nothing in Nilish Shah throws doubt on the construction of section 199(1)(a). 24 The subject matter of Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2001] UKHL 57, [2002 1 AC 547 was closer, although neither the applicant (Mr Mohamed) nor his wife were asylum seeke......
-
R (M) v LB Hammersmith & Fulham and LB Sutton; R (Hertfordshire County Council) v LB Hammersmith and Fulham
...phrase has been considered by the House of Lords in a different context. In Mohammed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2002] 1 AC 547, the House of Lords was required to consider the meaning of the words “normally resident” for the purposes of the Housing Act 1996. Lord Slynn......