Introduction

The case of Querino v Cambridge City Council (Rev1) [2024] EWCA Civ 314 presents significant legal considerations regarding the suitability of accommodation offered to individuals deemed homeless under the Housing Act 1996. Mr. Julian Querino, the appellant, challenged the Council's decision to provide him with a one-bedroom flat despite his request for additional bedrooms to accommodate his children. The core issues revolve around whether the accommodation offered was suitable given his family circumstances and whether the Council adhered to statutory and procedural requirements in making its offer.

This commentary delves into the complexities of the judgment, exploring the legal principles established, the application of precedents, and the broader implications for housing authorities and applicants in similar circumstances.

Summary of the Judgment

Mr. Querino, initially residing in a property in Coton with his wife and three daughters, became homeless in January 2022 and sought assistance from Cambridge City Council. The Council offered him a one-bedroom flat, deeming it suitable based on their Lettings Policy, which does not necessarily consider children living with a separated parent as part of the household for housing allocation purposes. Mr. Querino accepted the offer but subsequently requested a review, citing various personal and familial concerns, including the suitability of the accommodation for overnight stays by his children.

The initial review by the Council's reviewer upheld the suitability of the one-bedroom flat, dismissing the importance of the Cafcass report due to confidentiality and concluding that the accommodation was appropriate under current circumstances. Mr. Querino appealed this decision to the County Court, which ruled in his favor on three grounds: procedural deficiencies in the offer, non-compliance with statutory requirements, and the mishandling of the Cafcass report.

The Court of Appeal overturned the County Court's decision, siding with Cambridge City Council. The appellate court found that the original reviewer did not err in failing to send a "minded to" letter and that the Council had complied with the relevant sections of the Housing Act 1996, particularly sections 193(7F) and (8). Additionally, the Court held that the exclusion of the Cafcass report was legally justified, and its omission did not vitiate the review decision.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references key precedents that shape the interpretation of housing laws in the context of family and homelessness:

• Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames LBC [2009] UKHL 7: This case established that housing authorities must independently assess whether children can reasonably be expected to reside with a parent under homelessness schemes, distinct from family court determinations under the Children Act 1989.
• Poshteh v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2017] UKSC 36: Reinforced the need for a clear and practical approach in interpreting review decisions, discouraging overly technical scrutiny by courts.
• Griffiths v Tickle [2022] EWCA Civ 465: Highlighted the confidentiality of Cafcass reports and the legal boundaries concerning their disclosure.
• Norton v Haringey London Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1340: Clarified the application of sections 193(7F) and (8) concerning private rented sector offers and the necessity for housing authorities to ensure applicants can terminate existing accommodations before accepting new offers.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal's reasoning focused on several legal facets:

• Applicability of "Minded To" Letters: The court determined that the reviewer was not obligated to send a "minded to" letter since the emergence of the Cafcass report did not present a deficiency of sufficient importance to warrant additional procedural safeguards.
• Compliance with Sections 193(7F) and (8): The Council was found to have satisfied the requirements, as the accommodation offered was within its own housing stock, allowing it to manage contractual obligations effectively, unlike in Norton.
• Exclusion of the Cafcass Report: Legal protections under the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and the Family Procedure Rules justified the reviewer's decision to disregard the report, ensuring adherence to confidentiality and procedural fairness.
• Interpretation of Family Law vs. Housing Law: Reinforced the distinction between family court determinations and housing authority assessments, emphasizing the autonomy of housing decisions within statutory frameworks.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future homelessness cases involving separated or divorced parents:

• Clarification of "Suitability": Housing authorities are reinforced in their discretion to assess the suitability of accommodation based on existing policies, even when court orders suggest shared parenting arrangements.
• Procedural Adherence: The decision underscores the necessity for housing authorities to comply meticulously with statutory requirements, particularly when managing existing accommodations within their housing stock.
• Confidentiality of Family Proceedings: Affirms the legal protections surrounding Cafcass reports, limiting their influence on housing decisions unless expressly authorized.
• Policy Enforcement: Reinforces the application of housing policies that prioritize main residences over shared accommodations in separate households, unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Cafcass Report

Cafcass stands for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. Cafcass reports are prepared to advise courts on matters concerning children’s welfare in family proceedings. These reports are confidential and must not be disclosed without explicit permission, ensuring the protection of children's privacy and the integrity of proceedings.

Sections 193(2), 193(7F), and 193(8) of the Housing Act 1996

• Section 193(2): Imposes a "main housing duty" on local authorities to secure accommodation for individuals deemed homeless, provided they meet specific criteria.
• Section 193(7F): Prohibits housing authorities from making final offers, particularly private sector offers, unless they are certain that the applicant can terminate any existing accommodation obligations beforehand.
• Section 193(8): Defines situations where the main housing duty does not apply, primarily when the applicant cannot end their current accommodation obligations before accepting a new offer.

"Minded To" Letter

A "minded to" letter is a notification sent by a reviewer to an applicant indicating that, despite recognizing a deficiency or irregularity in the original decision, they intend to uphold the decision. This letter outlines the reasons and offers the applicant an opportunity to make further representations.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in Querino v Cambridge City Council reaffirms the balancing act housing authorities must perform between statutory obligations and individual circumstances. By upholding the suitability of the one-bedroom flat, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to established housing policies and statutory requirements, even in cases involving complex family dynamics.

Key takeaways include:

• Autonomy of Housing Authorities: Housing decisions are to be made within the framework of existing laws and policies, independent of family court proceedings unless explicitly connected.
• Confidentiality and Legal Boundaries: Protected documents like Cafcass reports must be handled with strict adherence to legal protocols, ensuring that housing decisions are not improperly influenced.
• Procedural Compliance: Ensuring that all procedural safeguards are observed is crucial for housing authorities to validate their decisions and withstand legal scrutiny.
• Policy Consistency: Consistent application of housing policies ensures fairness and predictability in how accommodation suitability is assessed across similar cases.

This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for future cases where homelessness intersects with family and housing law, highlighting the necessity for housing authorities to maintain rigorous standards in decision-making processes.