Nzolameso v City of Westminster

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a 51-year-old single mother of five children, became homeless after her private rent in The City rose beyond the capped housing-benefit allowance. She applied to The Council for assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”). The Council accepted the main homelessness duty and temporarily placed the family in hotel accommodation near their existing schools.

On 24 January 2013 the Council offered the Plaintiff a five-bedroom house in Bletchley, approximately 75 minutes from her former community. The Plaintiff refused, citing loss of medical care, support networks and her children’s schooling. The Council immediately served notice that its duty had ended pursuant to s.193(5) of the 1996 Act.

The Plaintiff sought an internal review (s.202), which upheld the suitability of the Bletchley offer. She appealed to the county court (s.204); that appeal failed. During the appellate process interim accommodation ceased, the children entered foster care and care proceedings commenced. The Court of Appeal dismissed a further appeal. The present judgment concerns the Plaintiff’s successful appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Council lawfully discharged its duty under s.193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 by offering accommodation outside its district without adequately considering the statutory duty in s.208(1) to accommodate “so far as reasonably practicable” within district.
2. Whether the Council complied with the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 and associated statutory guidance requiring placement “as close as possible” to the applicant’s previous residence.
3. Whether the Council had proper regard to its obligation under s.11(2) of the Children Act 2004 to safeguard and promote the welfare of the Plaintiff’s children when determining suitability and location.
4. Whether the Council’s review decision was adequately reasoned and supported by an evidential basis.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Council failed to show that in-borough accommodation was not “reasonably practicable” and provided no evidence of alternative, nearer properties.
• The review decision inverted the statutory test by requiring the Plaintiff to prove a need to remain in-borough.
• Mandatory considerations in the 2012 Order—including disruption to schooling, medical needs and support networks—were not properly addressed.
• The Council breached s.11 of the Children Act 2004 by overlooking the children’s welfare.
• The decision letters contained only boiler-plate language and lacked adequate reasons.

Respondent Council's Arguments

• Severe local housing shortages made in-borough placement not reasonably practicable.
• The reviewing officer was entitled to rely on knowledge of the Council’s stock without detailing it in the decision letter.
• The 75-minute commute and children’s ages rendered the Bletchley property suitable.
• Medical evidence did not demonstrate a need to remain in The City.

Intervener – Secretary of State’s Submissions

• Courts should not assume compliance with statutory guidance in the absence of explicit reasoning; local authorities must evidence and explain decisions.
• Over-reliance on boiler-plate paragraphs undermines the protective purpose of the 2012 Order and guidance.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
R (Sacupima) v Newham LBC [2001] 1 WLR 563	Location is a component of suitability under the 1996 Act.	Confirmed that suitability is an individualised duty encompassing location.
R (Yumsak) v Enfield LBC [2003] HLR 1	Earlier approach to out-of-borough placements pre-2012 Order.	Highlighted how the legal landscape has since changed.
R (Calgin) v Enfield LBC [2006] HLR 4	Need for evidential basis when allocating housing.	Reiterated that authorities must justify placement decisions.
R (Castle) v MPC [2014] 1 All ER 953	s.11 Children Act duties apply to individual decisions.	Supported the requirement to consider each child’s welfare.
Huzrat v Hounslow LBC [2013] EWCA Civ 1865	Limits of s.11 where statutory questions leave no discretion.	Distinguished from present case where discretion existed.
Ruiz Zambrano (C-34/09) [2012] QB 265 (EUCJ)	Child welfare in immigration context.	Illustrated breadth of welfare considerations, though not directly engaged.
Hines v Lambeth LBC [2014] EWCA Civ 660	Child welfare is relevant but not paramount under certain tests.	Cited to frame welfare within statutory parameters.
ZH (Tanzania) v SSHD [2011] UKSC 4	UNCRC influence on human-rights interpretation.	Not directly engaged but referenced for context.
R (Khatun) v Newham LBC [2005] QB 37	Departure from statutory guidance requires clear reasons.	Applied in criticising the Council’s unexplained non-compliance.
Royal Mail Group plc v Postal Services Commission [2007] EWHC 1205	High threshold to depart from policies formed after consultation.	Used to stress the authority’s need for “very good reasons.”
R (Munjaz) v Mersey Care NHS Trust [2006] 2 AC 148	Importance of codes protecting vulnerable persons.	Paralleled vulnerability of homeless households.
R v City of Westminster, Ex p Ermakov (1996) 28 HLR 819	Purpose of giving reasons: to explain and permit challenge.	Ground for holding the decision letters inadequate.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court held that the Council’s decision-making process was fundamentally flawed:

• Statutory Framework. Sections 206 and 208 of the 1996 Act impose separate duties: accommodation must be suitable and, so far as reasonably practicable, within district. The 2012 Order and supplementary guidance intensify the obligation to place households as near as possible to their former homes.
• Inadequate Inquiry. The temporary lettings team made no prior inquiries into school availability, medical needs or support structures in Bletchley before selecting that property.
• Reversed Burden. The review officer required the Plaintiff to prove necessity to remain in-borough, contrary to the statutory scheme that obliges the Council to justify out-of-borough placement.
• Boiler-plate Reasoning. Standard paragraphs reciting “severe shortage” lacked specifics about available stock, procurement policies, or reasons for bypassing nearer properties.
• Children’s Welfare. The Council failed to identify and evaluate the children’s educational and social needs as mandated by s.11 of the Children Act 2004; mere reference to GCSE stages was insufficient.
• Evidential Deficit. Courts below had impermissibly inferred compliance. The Supreme Court insisted on an explicit, documented evidential basis.
• Policy Guidance. The Court advised that authorities should publish procurement and allocation policies to facilitate transparent, lawful decision-making.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED. The notice purporting to end the Council’s duty to secure accommodation was quashed; the main homelessness duty remains undischarged.

Implications: Local housing authorities must:

• Demonstrate, with evidence, why in-district accommodation is not reasonably practicable.
• Document consideration of nearer alternatives and the statutory factors listed in the 2012 Order.
• Show explicit regard to the welfare of each affected child under s.11 of the Children Act 2004.
• Provide clear, case-specific reasons rather than generic statements.
• Develop and publish procurement and allocation policies to withstand future scrutiny.

Failure to do so risks successful challenge and does not set new precedent but reinforces strict compliance with existing statutory duties.