Introduction

Moge v London Borough of Ealing ([2023] EWCA Civ 464) is a pivotal case adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on April 27, 2023. The core issue revolves around whether the London Borough of Ealing ("the Council") adequately discharged its relief duty under Section 189B of the Housing Act 1996 by offering suitable accommodation to Ms. Moge ("the Appellant"). The case probes the Council's compliance with Section 208(1) of the Act, which mandates securing available accommodation within the authority's district, "so far as reasonably practicable," when assisting a homeless individual.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal dismissed Ms. Moge's appeal, upholding the Council's decision to terminate its relief duty after offering her a two-bedroom flat in Lower Feltham, a neighboring borough. The Court found that the Council had complied with its obligations under Section 208(1), considering the severe housing shortages and the measures outlined in its Temporary Accommodation (TA) Acquisitions Policy. Although the initial appeal raised concerns about the adequacy of the Council's search for alternative accommodations, the admission of fresh evidence demonstrated that the Council had actively sought suitable properties, thereby fulfilling its legal duties.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several key cases that have shaped the interpretation of Sections 208(1) and 189B of the Housing Act 1996:

• Nzolameso v Westminster City Council [2015] UKSC 22: Established that local authorities must demonstrate reasonable practicability in securing in-borough accommodation before offering out-of-borough placements.
• Abdikadir v Ealing LBC [2022] EWCA Civ 979: Highlighted the necessity for authorities to follow published policies in allocating accommodation and emphasized the burden of proof on the authority to demonstrate compliance with Section 208(1).
• Alibkhiet v Brent LBC [2018] EWCA Civ 2742: Reinforced the importance of adhering to established policies and provided guidelines on policy formulation and public availability.
• Saleh v [Various Boroughs] [2019-2023]: Clarified the "concentric circles" approach, emphasizing the necessity of offering the closest possible accommodation while balancing practical constraints.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's decision hinged on the interpretation and application of Section 208(1), which requires local authorities to secure accommodation within their district "so far as reasonably practicable." The Court underscored that:

• Burden of Proof: The onus lies on the Council to demonstrate compliance with Section 208(1), including thorough searches for available accommodations within the borough.
• Policy Adherence: Effective policies, such as the TA Acquisitions Policy, are crucial. These policies should be publicly accessible, regularly updated, and reflect statutory obligations.
• Reasonable Flexibility: While authorities must strive to meet obligations, excessive technical scrutiny can impede justice, especially given the resource constraints faced by councils.
• Fresh Evidence Admission: The Court acknowledged the legitimacy of admitting fresh evidence post-decision, especially when it rectifies deficiencies in the initial review process.

In this case, the admission of Ms. Grant's witness statement provided sufficient evidence that the Council had actively sought suitable accommodations, thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 208(1).

Impact

This judgment reinforces the necessity for local authorities to maintain up-to-date and comprehensive policies for housing allocations. It emphasizes the importance of demonstrating active and reasonable efforts in securing suitable accommodations within the district before extending offers outside. Future cases will likely reference this decision to evaluate whether councils have met their statutory duties, ensuring a balanced approach that considers both legal obligations and practical limitations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 208(1) of the Housing Act 1996

This section mandates that local housing authorities must secure available accommodation within their jurisdiction when assisting homeless individuals, provided it is "reasonably practicable." It implies a positive duty to prioritize in-district housing solutions before exploring options outside the area.

Relief Duty (Section 189B)

The relief duty is an initial obligation that requires authorities to take reasonable steps to help individuals secure suitable accommodation for at least six months. This duty is less stringent than the full housing duty and can terminate under specific conditions, such as the refusal of a suitable offer.

Full Housing Duty (Section 193)

The full housing duty is a comprehensive obligation activated when an individual meets specific criteria, including being genuinely homeless and not having intentionally become homeless. It requires authorities to provide accommodation unless it can be legally disapplied.

The "Concentric Circles" Approach

This metaphor describes the method local authorities should use to find suitable accommodation, prioritizing options closest to the individual's previous residence or workplace within progressively wider geographical areas.

Conclusion

The Moge v London Borough of Ealing judgment underscores the critical balance between legal obligations and practical feasibility for local authorities managing homelessness. By affirming that the Council adequately discharged its relief duty under Section 189B through reasonable efforts to secure suitable in-district accommodation, the Court has set a clear precedent for evaluating similar cases. The decision emphasizes the importance of robust, transparent policies and proactive measures in housing allocations, ensuring that authorities remain accountable while navigating resource constraints. This case serves as a benchmark for future adjudications, promoting fairness and due diligence in the provision of housing assistance.