Trinity Housing Barrister Summary of R (On the Application of Ahamed) v London Borough of Haringey [2023]

Trinity Social Housing Law barrister, Henry Percy-Raine has prepared the following summary of the recent Court of Appeal decision of R (On the Application of Ahamed) v London Borough of Haringey [2023] EWCA Civ 975.

In August 2021, the appellant, Ms Ahamed, was granted leave to remain in the UK. As a result of this, she had to leave her accommodation provided through the National Asylum Support Service. In November 2021, she submitted a homelessness application which culminated in her residing in a room at a hostel, which was not offered on a temporary basis.

Facts

In a letter in December 2021, Ms Ahamed was informed that the Council’s “relief duty” under s.189B of the 1996 Act had come to an end as the room provided was suitable and available for at least six months. Further, the Council stated that the main housing duty under s.193 of the 1996 Act did not apply as she was not homeless.

In February 2022, Ms Ahamed sought Judicial Review of the decision that the accommodation was suitable. Judge Ward refused permission on the basis that Ms Ahamed had an alternative remedy through the review procedure and, potentially, an appeal to the County Court pursuant to section 204 of the 1996 Act.

In April 2022, a reviewing officer of the Council gave a final decision confirming that he was satisfied that the Council’s relief duty had come to an end. He considered issues of suitability including affordability, dietary needs and medical conditions, and was satisfied that the accommodation was suitable for Ms Ahamed. The officer also endorsed the view that the main duty did not apply as Ms Ahamed was not homeless; the accommodation was available for longer than 56 days; and it was reasonable for her to continue to occupy it with reference back to the details provided on suitability.

In November 2022, permission to appeal Judge Ward’s decision was granted on an issue concerning the interplay of section 189B of the 1996 Act ending and the “main housing duty” under section 193 of the 1996 Act. By this time, Ms Ahamed had also appealed to the County Court under s.204 of the 1996 Act. Before the Court of Appeal, there was accordingly the appeal from Judge Ward’s decision and the appeal under section 204 of the 1996 Act.

Decision

On the relationship between sections 189B and 193 of the 1996 Act, a review of the authorities confirmed that ‘reasonableness’ and ‘suitability’ are distinct concepts. It does not therefore automatically follow upon the relief duty coming to an end that a person was prevented from being owed the main housing duty as “homeless”. However, it must very often be the case that a person for whom such suitable accommodation is available is not “homeless”. Where that is so, the main housing duty does not arise [49]. Moreover, accommodation does not have to be available “indefinitely” for it to be reasonable for a person to continue to occupy it [47].

Ms Ahamed’s challenge to the conclusion that the room was suitable in the longer term was not successful. The reviewing officer had considered the aspects of her disabilities and asked with an open mind whether such meant the room was suitable. It was held that he was entitled to conclude that the room was suitable and accordingly that the relief duty had come to an end [60-61].

It was further held that whilst s.184(3) of the 1996 Act required the Council to give reasons for its decision that she was not homeless pursuant to s.184 of the 1996 Act, in the instant case it was considered that the officer’s final decision letter met this requirement. Although the conclusion was stated shortly, it referenced back to previous parts of the letter where details of the accommodation and her circumstances were considered. Moreover, it was held that the conclusion reached that she was not homeless was an entirely reasonable one having regard to all of the matters discussed in that letter [62-63].

Accordingly, both appeals were dismissed.