Nzolameso v City of Westminster
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lady Justice Arden,Lord Justice Moore-Bick,Lady Justice Black,Lord Justice Vos |
| Judgment Date | 22 October 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWCA Civ 1383,[2014] EWCA Civ 1051 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2013/3733 |
| Date | 22 October 2014 |
[2014] EWCA Civ 1051
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CENTRAL LONDON CIVIL JUSTICE CENTRE
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE HORNBY)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lady Justice Arden
Case No: B2/2013/3733
Mr Jan Luba QC and Mr Lindsey Johnson (instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr Ian Peacock (instructed by Legal Services, Westminster City Council) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
I propose to give you permission in terms of grounds to be drafted, because I am persuaded that it is arguable that there were two questions to be answered by the local housing authority: first, whether it was reasonably practicable to accommodate in the area; and secondly, whether Milton Keynes was suitable. It is arguable that the decision letter ran both those questions together. I am content for the grounds of appeal to raise that question and also the question whether the judge erred in not concluding that the grounds relied on as justification were insufficient and should have addressed certain specific matters, which will be specified in the grounds of appeal.
[2014] EWCA Civ 1383
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT
His Honour Judge Hornby
3CL40062
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Moore-Bick
(Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division)
Lady Justice Black
and
Lord Justice Vos
Case No: B2/2013/3733
Mr. Jan Luba Q.C. and Mr. Lindsay Johnson (instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen) for the appellant
Mr. Ian Peacock (instructed by City of Westminster Legal Services) for the respondent
Hearing date: 29 th September 2014
Introduction
This appeal raises some interesting and important questions concerning the powers of local housing authorities to provide accommodation outside their own districts for those to whom they owe a housing duty. Until November 2012 the appellant, Ms. Nzolameso, lived in a four bedroom house in Westminster, the rent for which was covered by housing benefit in the form of local housing allowance. Following the reduction in 2012 of the amount of housing benefit, Ms. Nzolameso became unable to afford the rent on her existing property and as a result she and her five children became homeless. The respondent, the City of Westminster ("Westminster"), accepted that it owed her the main housing duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 ("the Act") and offered her temporary accommodation in the form of a five bedroom house in Bletchley, near Milton Keynes. Ms Nzolameso refused that offer. She had lived in Westminster for over four years and had many friends who provided her with emotional and practical support, in particular with looking after her children. She said that the house in Bletchley was too far from her children's schools and that she did not know anyone in the area who would give her the same support as her friends in Westminster. As a result of her rejection of the offer of what it considered to be a suitable property, Westminster decided that it had discharged its duty towards Ms Nzolameso and was no longer under a duty to make accommodation available to her.
Ms Nzolameso asked for a review both of the decision that the house at Bletchley was suitable for her and of the decision that Westminster had discharged its duty to provide her with accommodation. A review was carried out, but the reviewing officer upheld both decisions. Ms Nzolameso appealed against those decisions under section 204 of the Act and thus the matter came before His Honour Judge Hornby in the Central London County Court. The judge expressed a good deal of sympathy for Ms Nzolameso, but he upheld the decision of the reviewing officer and dismissed the appeal. This is her appeal against that decision.
The legislative background
Mr. Luba Q.C. for Ms Nzolameso placed a good deal of weight on the legislative background and it is therefore necessary to refer to some of it in detail. The following provisions of the Act are of particular relevance:
" 193.—Duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally
(1) This section applies where 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.
(2) Unless the authority refer the application to another local housing authority (see section 198), they shall secure that accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant.
…
(5) The local housing authority shall cease to be subject to the duty under this section if the applicant, having been informed by the authority of the possible consequence of refusal and of his right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation, refuses an offer of accommodation which the authority are satisfied is suitable for him and the authority notify him that they regard themselves as having discharged their duty under this section.
…
198.—Referral of case to another local housing authority
(1) If the local housing authority would be subject to the duty under section 193 (accommodation for those with priority need who are not homeless intentionally) 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.
(2) The conditions for referral of the case to another authority are met if—
(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, and
(c) neither the applicant nor any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him will run the risk of domestic violence in that other district.
202.—Right to request review of decision
(1) An applicant has the right to request a review of—
…
(b) any decision of a local housing authority as to what duty (if any) is owed to him under [sections 193 and 196 ],
…
(f) any decision of a local housing authority as to the suitability of accommodation offered to him in discharge of their duty under any of the provisions mentioned in paragraph (b) …
…
206.—Discharge of functions by local housing authorities
(1) A local housing authority may discharge their housing functions under this Part only in the following ways—
(a) by securing that suitable accommodation provided by them is available,
(b) by securing that he obtains suitable accommodation from some other person,
…
208.—Discharge of functions: out-of-area placements
(1) So far as reasonably practicable a local housing authority shall in discharging their housing functions under this Part secure that accommodation is available for the occupation of the applicant in their district."
Section 182 of the Act requires local housing authorities, in the exercise of their functions relating to homelessness, to have regard to such guidance as may be given by the Secretary of State from time to time. The relevant guidance for present purposes is contained in the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (2006) ("the Code"). Paragraphs 16.7 to 16.9 of the Code provide guidance on compliance with the duty imposed by section 208 of the Act. They provide that housing authorities should aim to provide accommodation within their own districts wherever possible, unless there are clear benefits to a particular applicant of being accommodated elsewhere, and that those who have a need to maintain links with essential services should be given priority. The Code also recognises in paragraph 17.41 that the location of accommodation will have a bearing on its suitability for the different members of the household, all of whose interests have to be taken into account, and that housing authorities should secure accommodation as close as possible to where applicants were previously living.
Supplementary Guidance was issued in 2012 in relation to compliance with the requirements of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 ("the Supplementary Guidance"). Paragraph 48 of that guidance provides as follows:
"Where it is not possible to secure accommodation within district and an authority has secured accommodation outside their district, the authority is required to take into account the distance of that accommodation from the district of the authority. Where accommodation which is otherwise suitable and affordable is available nearer to the authority's district than the accommodation which it has secured, the accommodation which it has secured is not likely to be suitable unless the authority has a justifiable reason or the applicant has specified a preference."
The reviewing officer's decision
In her decision letter the reviewing officer confirmed that she had considered all the relevant information, including the reasons given by Ms Nzolameso for rejecting the property, information from her GP and the information contained in the housing file. She noted that the house in Bletchley was suitable for seven people and therefore large...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abdelrahim Alibkhiet v London Borough of Brent; Amounah Adam v City of Westminster
...of the Supreme Court in Nzolameso v Westminster City Council [2015] UKSC 22, [2015] PTSR 549, allowing an appeal from this court: [2014] EWCA Civ 1383, [2015] PTSR 211. Ms Nzolameso applied to Westminster as a homeless person. She was a single mother with health problems and had five child......
-
Joy Adesotu v Lewisham London Borough Council
...... was not a proportionate means of achieving the local authority's legitimate aims: Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2011] 2 AC 104 . . . 25 Since no possession action was ...It was held by this court in Abed v City of Westminster [2011] EWCA Civ 1406 that in a case where a review has taken place it is the review decision, ... obiter in Panayiotou were “not easy to reconcile” with dicta of Lady Hale in Nzolameso v City of Westminster [2015] UK SC 22 ; [2015] 2 All ER 942 . Having considered these ......
-
Nzolameso v Westminster City Council
...22 before Lady Hale, Deputy President Lord Clarke Lord Reed Lord Hughes Lord Toulson THE SUPREME COURT Hilary Term On appeal from: [2014] EWCA Civ 1383 Appellant Martin Westgate QC Lindsay (Instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen LLP) Respondent Ian Peacock (Instructed by City of Westminster, Co......
-
R (on the application of J and L) v London Borough of Hillingdon
...not just its social services department. In Nzolameso v Westminster City Council [2015] UKSC 22; [2015] 2 All ER 942; [2015] PTSR 549; [2015] HLR 1, the Supreme Court considered the nature and extent of the s.11 duty. Baroness Hale gave the judgment for the Court: [22] Shelter Children's ......