Temur v London Borough of Hackney

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, a separated married woman with a young daughter, applied to the local housing authority for accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 ("the 1996 Act") after leaving her matrimonial home due to alleged violence. Initially, the authority decided she was homeless and eligible for assistance but not in priority need. The appellant then secured a shorthold tenancy of a small room with shared facilities. The local authority's reviewing officer subsequently decided she was not homeless, reasoning that the new accommodation was reasonable for her and her daughter to occupy. The appellant challenged this review decision, which was dismissed by the county court. She then appealed to the Court of Appeal, raising three grounds of appeal related to the reviewing officer's powers, the application of housing hazard assessments, and consideration of future circumstances regarding accommodation suitability.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, on a review under section 202 of the 1996 Act, the reviewing officer is entitled to substitute a decision less favourable to the applicant than the original decision.
2. Whether, when assessing if the applicant's current accommodation is so unsatisfactory that the applicant is homeless under section 175(3), the tests in sections 206 and 210 of the 1996 Act, including hazard assessments under the Housing Act 2004, must be applied.
3. Whether the reviewing officer failed to properly consider future circumstances when determining if it was reasonable for the applicant and her daughter to continue occupying the current accommodation under section 175(3) of the 1996 Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The reviewing officer lacked power to substitute an adverse decision on different grounds, changing the finding from homeless but not in priority need to not homeless.
• The reviewing officer erred by failing to carry out a hazard assessment under the Housing Act 2004 before deciding the accommodation was reasonable.
• The reviewing officer failed to properly consider the future reasonableness of continuing to occupy the accommodation, focusing instead mainly on the present circumstances.

Respondent's Arguments

• The reviewing officer was entitled to substitute a less favourable decision due to changed circumstances, as the appellant had obtained accommodation.
• The statutory scheme distinguishes between the assessment of current accommodation under section 175(3) and the suitability of accommodation to be provided under sections 206 and 210, with hazard assessments relevant only at the latter stage.
• The reviewing officer properly considered the future in assessing whether it was reasonable for the appellant and her daughter to continue occupying the accommodation, taking into account relevant factors and the local housing context.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2001] UKHL 57	Reviewing officer's decision is based on the facts as they exist at the date of the review; the decision is "at large" as to facts.	Supported the principle that a reviewing officer may substitute a less favourable decision if circumstances have changed since the original decision.
Banks v Kingston-Upon-Thames RLBC [2008] EWCA Civ 1443	Original decisions may become deficient due to supervening events; reviewing officers must consider new facts.	Confirmed that a review can address deficiencies arising from changed circumstances, supporting the scope of review.
NJ v Wandsworth LBC [2013] EWCA Civ 1373	Reinforces that reviewing officers must consider new facts and may substitute decisions accordingly.	Followed Banks and affirmed the reviewing officer's broad discretion on review.
R v Brent London Borough Council ex parte Sadiq (2001) 33 HLR 47	Whether a local authority can reverse an earlier duty decision under section 184.	Distinguished as not applicable to reviews under section 202; did not support appellant's argument.
Porteous v West Dorset DC [2004] EWCA Civ 244	Local authority may vary earlier decisions if based on fundamental mistake of fact; review considers circumstances at review date.	Supported that reviews consider current circumstances but did not preclude less favourable decisions.
Crawley BC v B (2002) 32 HLR 636	A judge may prevent deprivation of accrued benefits due to events between original decision and appeal.	Recognised but distinguished as not applicable in the present case due to changed accommodation circumstances.
Birmingham City Council v Ali [2009] UKHL 36	Distinguishes between tests for homelessness under section 175(3) and suitability of accommodation under sections 206 and 210; "homeless at home" principle.	Supported the respondent's position that different standards apply at different stages; hazard assessment relevant only at stage 2.
Harouki v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2007] EWCA Civ 1000	Tests for homelessness and suitability are related but distinct.	Accepted as partially supportive but subject to later House of Lords decision in Ali.
Mitu v Camden LBC [2011] EWCA Civ 1249	Differentiates decision and issues arising during decision making; duty to provide reasons for decision.	Supported the interpretation of the scope of review and duty to reconsider decisions.
Rikha Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC [2005] EWCA Civ 340	Allows fresh applications when circumstances change.	Referenced to confirm the appellant may reapply if circumstances worsen.
Mohamoud v Birmingham City Council [2014] EWCA Civ 227	Reinforces that supervening events can make original decisions deficient.	Supported the broad scope of review and reconsideration of homelessness status.
Lambeth LBC v Johnston [2008] EWCA Civ	Reviewing officers have a statutory duty to consider whether original decisions have become deficient.	Confirmed statutory duties relevant to the review process.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the statutory framework governing reviews under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 and related regulations. It held that the reviewing officer's power to substitute a decision less favourable to the applicant is not restricted by the statute or regulations, provided the decision reflects the state of affairs at the review date. The court distinguished earlier case law cited by the appellant as inapplicable or addressing different statutory provisions.

Regarding the requirement to carry out a hazard assessment under the Housing Act 2004, the court analysed the legislative scheme, noting that different tests apply at two stages: the initial assessment of current accommodation to determine homelessness (stage 1), and the assessment of accommodation to be provided (stage 2). The court concluded that hazard assessments and the suitability test under sections 206 and 210 apply only at stage 2, not at stage 1. This interpretation was supported by the House of Lords decision in Birmingham City Council v Ali and the statutory Code of Guidance.

On the issue of whether the reviewing officer properly considered future circumstances, the court reviewed the decision letter and found that the officer had explicitly addressed future reasonableness, including sleeping arrangements, landlord responsiveness, and local housing conditions. The court acknowledged that while the accommodation was not ideal, the officer's conclusion that it was reasonable to continue occupancy was open to him. The court also noted that the appellant could make a fresh application if circumstances changed.

Lord Justice Lewison provided additional analysis emphasizing the statutory duty of local authorities to reconsider homelessness status and the scope of review, reinforcing that the reviewing officer must consider current and new facts and may substitute decisions accordingly. He rejected the appellant's argument that reviews can only confirm or improve the applicant's position.

Holding and Implications

The Court of Appeal DISMISSED the appellant's appeal.

The court held that the reviewing officer was entitled to substitute a less favourable decision based on changed circumstances, was not required to carry out a hazard assessment under the Housing Act 2004 at the stage of determining homelessness, and properly considered future reasonableness in assessing the accommodation. The direct effect is that the appellant remains not homeless under the 1996 Act as per the review decision. No new precedent was established beyond clarifying the scope of review and the application of hazard assessments under the statutory scheme.