Ravichandran and another v Lewisham London Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 July 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWCA Civ 755 |
| Date | 02 July 2010 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B5/2009/2366 |
[2010] EWCA Civ 755
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT
Her Honour Judge Faber
Before : Lord Justice Stanley Burnton
Lord Justice Etherton
and
Sir Mark Waller
Case No: B5/2009/2366
HHA 90057
Mr Robert Latham and Tracey Bloom (instructed by Morrison Spowart Solicitors) for the Appellants
Mr Andrew Arden QC and Matthew Hutchings (instructed by Lewisham Borough Council) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 18 th May 2010
The following is the judgment of the Court.
Introduction
This is an appeal from an order of Her Honour Judge Faber in the ov London County Court on 13 October 2009, by which she dismissed the appellants' appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) from a review decision by the respondent authority, the London Borough of Lewisham (“Lewisham”), upholding Lewisham's decision that it no longer owed a duty to the appellants under section 193 of the 1996 Act (“section 193”).
The appeal concerns the important and difficult provisions of the 1996 Act about the circumstances in which a local housing authority ceases to be under a duty to provide accommodation under section 193, including consideration of the relationship between section 193(5) and section 193(7) and the review obligations of the authority under section 202 of the 1996 Act (“section 202”).
The Judge found herself in the difficult position of having to deal with the case at the very end of a busy day, with only three hours having been allowed for the hearing, even though the parties had asked for a whole day. Acting, doubtless, in what she considered to be in the best interests of the parties and efficiency, she decided to give an immediate judgment. We have added a short postscript at the end of this judgment by way of recommendation as to how such a situation, which may not be uncommon, might preferably be handled.
The background
The appellants, Vimalini Ravichandran and her husband Rasarathinam Ravichandran, were homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and persons who Lewisham was satisfied were not homeless intentionally. They thus complied with section 193(1) and were persons to whom Lewisham was obliged to secure that accommodation was available pursuant to section 193(2). Lewisham did provide temporary accommodation at 74 Bell Green, London SE26.
The duty of a local authority continues “until it ceases by virtue of any of the provisions of this section”: see s.193(3). Section 193 has been amended from time to time, particularly by the Homelessness Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), and we shall refer to the provisions of the section as amended. The relevant provisions are subsections (5), (6), (7), (7A), ( 7F), (8) and (9). It is necessary to quote those subsections in full, but it is relevant to note that there are a number of other subsections inserted by way of amendment which apply to situations not present in this case:—
“(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.
(6) The local housing authority shall cease to be subject to the duty under this section if the applicant—
(a) ceases to be eligible for assistance,
(b) becomes homeless intentionally from the accommodation made available for his occupation,
(c) accepts an offer of accommodation under Part VI (allocation of housing), or
(cc) accepts an offer of an assured tenancy (other than an assured shorthold tenancy) from a private landlord,
(d) otherwise voluntarily ceases to occupy as his only or principal home the accommodation made available for his occupation.
(7) The local housing authority shall also cease to be subject to the duty under this section if the applicant, having been informed 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 under Part 6.
(7A) An offer of accommodation under Part 6 is a final offer for the purposes of subsection (7) if it is made in writing and states that it is a final offer for the purposes of subsection (7).
…
(7F) The local housing authority shall not—
(a) make a final offer of accommodation under Part 6 for the purposes of subsection (7);
(ab) approve a private accommodation offer; or
(b) approve an offer of an assured shorthold tenancy for the purposes of subsection (7B), unless they are satisfied that the accommodation is suitable for the applicant and that it is reasonable for him to accept the offer.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7F) an applicant may reasonably be expected to accept an offer even though he is under contractual or other obligations in respect of his existing accommodation, provided he is able to bring those obligations to an end before he is required to take up the offer.
(9) A person who ceases to be owed the duty under this section may make a fresh application to the authority for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation.”
Also relevant is section 202 of the Act which provides as follows:—
“202. Right to request review of decision
(1) An applicant has the right to request a review of—
(a) any decision of a local housing authority as to his eligibility for assistance,
(b) any decision of a local housing authority as to what duty (if any) is owed to him under sections 190 to 193 and 195 to 197 (duties to persons found to be homeless or threatened with homelessness),
(c) any decision of a local housing authority to notify another authority under section 198(1) (referral of cases),
(d) any decision under section 198(5) whether the conditions are met for the referral of his case,
(e) any decision under section 200( 3) or (4) (decision as to duty owed to applicant whose case is considered for referral or referred),
(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) or (e) or as to the suitability of accommodation offered to him as mentioned in section 193(7), or
(g) any decision of a local housing authority as to the suitability of accommodation offered to him by way of a private accommodation offer (within the meaning of section 193).
(1A) An applicant who is offered accommodation as mentioned section 193(5), ( 7) or (7AA) may under subsection (1)(f) or (as the case may be) (g) request a review of the suitability of the accommodation offered to him whether or not he has accepted the offer.
(2) There is no right to request a review of the decision reached on an earlier review.
(3) A request for review must be made before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which he is notified of the authority's decision or such longer period as the authority may in writing allow.
(4) On a request being duly made to them, the authority or authorities concerned shall review their decision.”
The appellants were made a “final offer” of accommodation under Part VI of the 1996 Act. The accommodation was a three bedroom flat, 3 Wakelin House, Brockley Park, London SE23 (“Wakelin House”). That offer was, as required by section 193(7), in writing and included the following:—
“The Council is satisfied that this accommodation is suitable and it is reasonable for you to accept this offer
If you do not take up this offer the council will no longer have a duty to provide you with any accommodation.
If you do not turn up for the interview, it will be presumed that you are refusing the offer. We will then discharge our duty (to house you) under s.193(7) Housing Act 1996. If you are in temporary accommodation We will terminate your tenancy and you will have to make your own arrangements for housing.
You have a right to review based on the suitability of this offer. This request must be made within 21 days of the offer (s.202 Housing Act 1996).”
The appellants inspected Wakelin House and, with the assistance of one of Lewisham's case workers, filled in certain forms indicating the unsuitability of the property. Relied on were medical problems: “active thyroid and bronchial asthma” of the husband which meant that since the property was “based on a hill … he will struggle walking to this property”. Also relied on was the fact that “all three children suffer with asthma” and the eldest child “has a leg problem”. A Refusal Form was also filled in; it contained the following statements at its head :—
“The Council is satisfied that this accommodation is suitable and it is reasonable for you to accept this offer. If you do not take up this offer of housing the council will no longer have a duty to provide you with any accommodation. We will then discharge our duty (to house you) under s.193(7) Housing Act 1996. We will terminate any temporary accommodation and you will have to make your own arrangements for housing.
You have a right to a review based on the suitability of this offer. This request must be made within 21 days of this offer …”
The forms were properly treated as a request for a review to which the appellants were entitled under section 202(1)(f)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vilvarasa v Harrow LBC
...finding that the property was suitable? 34 Mr Colville's riposte is to point to the very recent decision of this court in Ravichandran v London Borough of Lewisham [2010] EWCA Civ 755 and, in particular, to paras [21], [25], [27] and [35(2)], in support of the contention that "suitability" ......
-
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council v Shamina Khan
...is suitable and that it is reasonable for the homeless person to accept the offer. As the Recorder observed (judgment, [42]), Ravichandran v Lewisham LBC [2010] EWCA Civ 755 at [24] and [35(4)] makes it clear that that is a different question to whether the offer was one which it was reason......
-
The Queen -on the application of- christopher Mitchell v London Borough of Islington
...to the requirements of the statute, by referring to the more recent approach of the Court of Appeal in Ravichandran v Lewisham LBC [2010] EWCA Civ 755; [2011] PTSR 11. He submitted the Court of Appeal in that latter case had confined the decision of Omar to its own facts and he relied on t......