• Thursday, April 13, 2023
Housing Barrister Summary of Zaman v London Borough of Waltham Forest and Uduezue v Bexley London Borough Council [2023]

Trinity Social Housing Law barrister, Henry Percy-Raine has prepared the following summary of the recent Court of Appeal decisions in Zaman v London Borough of Waltham Forest and Uduezue v Bexley London Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 322.

The two appeals concerned “out of borough” offers, in Ms Zaman’s case a property more than 160 miles away from where she was living and in Ms Uduezue’s case a property in excess of 20 miles away. In each case, the relevant local authority made what was stated to be a “private rented sector offer” (or “PRSO”).

The facts

In July 2021, Ms Zaman and her three children were provided with temporary accommodation by the London Borough of Waltham Forest (“Waltham Forest”) which accepted that it owed her the main housing duty under s.193 HA 1996. Waltham Forest thereafter offered a private assured shorthold tenancy for a three-bedroom property in Stoke-on-Trent to end its duty. Ms Zaman declined that offer but did outline that she would be willing to accept a local two-bedroom property. Waltham Forest contended that it discharged its duty on the basis that on the day of the offer, there had been no closer and suitable three-bedroom properties available.

In December 2019, Bexley London Borough Council (“Bexley”) provided Ms Uduezue and her children with temporary accommodation accepting that it owed her the main housing duty. In July 2020, following Ms Uduezue giving birth to a third daughter, the family moved to a three-bedroom temporary accommodation. In August 2020, Bexley offered a three-bedroom house in Kent to end its duty. Ms Uduezue refused that offer but in so doing made no mention of whether she was willing to accept a local two-bedroom accommodation. Bexley contended it discharged its duty on the basis that on the day of the offer, there had been no closer three-bedroom accommodation available and that a smaller property would not have been suitable to her housing needs.

The appeals of Ms Zaman and Ms Uduezue at first instance were both unsuccessful.

The Court of Appeal

Whilst Ms Zaman accepted that no other three-bedroom properties were available on the date the offer was made, she contended that Waltham Forest had failed to evidence that it could not have obtained closer accommodation. Newey LJ, giving the leading judgment, concurred that local housing authorities have a duty to provide accommodation as near as possible to their districts [47]. Further, it was not apparent from Waltham Forest’s evidence that they had prioritised properties closer to the borough or provided any reason why so many of their properties were as far away as Stoke-on-Trent. In short, it was held that whilst their policy was lawful, it was not clear that it was being implemented and accordingly it was not shown that the property in Stoke-on-Trent was the closest property to the borough that could be secured [522-53]. Ms Zaman’s appeal was allowed.

Ms Uduezue advanced three primary grounds of appeal:

i) Did Bexley wrongly fail to consider the possibility of offering a two-bedroom accommodation?

ii) Did Bexley fail to take proper steps to assess the impact which moving to 85 Hartington Street would have on Ms Uduezue’s daughter?

iii) Did the offer made to Ms Uduezue fail to qualify as a PRSO because (a) the offer was made by Bexley rather than the relevant “private landlord” and (b) the “private landlord” was not identified?

Her three primary grounds of appeal were unsuccessful. She had not at any time before the offer or during the review process intimated that a two-bedroom property would suffice. Moreover, the review had considered that the two-bedroom properties available would not be suitable for her housing needs and such a view could not be said to be irrational [63]. The reviewer was also reasonable in seeing no need to make further inquiries about the impact of the move on Ms Uduezue’s daughter’s education, there was information already available on that issue [68]. There was furthermore no requirement under s.193(7AC) HA 1996 to identify the private landlord who was offering the tenancy underlying the PRSO [72].

Ms Uduezue also sought permission to appeal on an additional ground, namely, that Bexley did not inform her of the effect under section 195A of a further application to a local housing authority within two years of acceptance of the offer. This was prompted by the decision of Norton v Haringey London Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1340, in which the Court of Appeal held the effect of non-compliance was that the main housing duty continued.

Newey LJ granted permission for Ms Uduezue to rely on this additional ground. In so doing, it was outlined that if the appeal overall raised an important point of principle or practice, permission to appeal could be given in respect of one or more other grounds of appeal which had real prospects of success but were of no wider significance [82]. Moreover, the failure to raise this point earlier had not caused prejudice as the county court would have had no discretion to refuse relief [88]. Ms Uduezue’s appeal was allowed on this ground as Bexley accepted that it did not inform her of the effect of s.195A(2) HA 1996.

Loading...