Alibkhiet v London Borough of Brent v City of Westminster

Factual and Procedural Background

These joined appeals concern the lawfulness of decisions and processes by two London borough housing authorities in the exercise of their statutory duties under the homelessness legislation, specifically regarding offers to accommodate homeless persons outside their respective districts. The appeals arise from decisions by HHJ Saggerson, who upheld the decision of one local authority and quashed the decision of the other. The statutory framework involves duties under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 to secure accommodation for homeless applicants, with obligations to accommodate within the authority's own district as far as reasonably practicable. The case involves two appellants: one a divorced woman with three children who was offered accommodation outside her home borough, and the other a national with a family offered accommodation outside London. Both appellants challenged the suitability of the accommodation and the authorities' compliance with their statutory duties.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the housing authorities complied with their duty under section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 to accommodate homeless applicants within their own district so far as reasonably practicable.
2. Whether the decisions to offer accommodation outside the boroughs were lawful and supported by adequate reasons.
3. The extent and nature of the duty to give reasons for decisions and reviews under the homelessness legislation.
4. The lawfulness and application of housing authority policies for allocation and procurement of accommodation, including the use of private rented sector offers.
5. The interpretation and application of statutory guidance and regulations regarding the suitability of accommodation, particularly in relation to location and disruption to applicants’ lives.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant 1's Arguments (Ms Adam)

• The local authority did not make sufficient efforts to comply with its duty to house her within the borough if reasonably practicable.
• The local authority failed to give adequate reasons for its decision to offer accommodation outside the borough.
• The decision to discharge the housing duty at the time it did was not clearly justified, with no assessment of whether accommodation in-borough would become available within a reasonable timeframe.

Appellant 2's Arguments (Mr Alibkhiet)

• The local authority’s policy states that out-of-London placements are only to be made where suitable affordable accommodation is not available locally, but suitable accommodation was available locally and was not offered.
• The review decision failed to explain why available properties within London were not offered, particularly a property in an adjacent borough.
• The reviewing officer misinterpreted the policy as precluding any offer within London for applicants not meeting priority criteria.
• The local authority failed to give reasons for the out-of-borough offer at the point of offer, undermining the fairness of the process.

Respondent Authorities' Arguments

• The housing authorities face severe shortages of affordable accommodation and must balance competing demands according to lawful policies.
• Decisions to offer accommodation outside the borough or London are discretionary and lawful when based on policies that fairly allocate scarce resources.
• The reviewing officers’ decisions adequately explained the application of policies and reasons for offers made.
• The statutory scheme requires reasons only for review decisions, not for initial offers, and the statutory review process mitigates potential unfairness.
• The availability of accommodation must be understood in the context of the applicant’s eligibility under the policy and priority criteria, not merely physical availability.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by outlining the statutory framework governing housing authorities’ duties to homeless applicants, emphasizing the obligation to accommodate within the borough so far as reasonably practicable under section 208 of the Housing Act 1996. It acknowledged the severe shortage of affordable housing and the resulting need for authorities to adopt policies balancing competing demands.

In the first appeal, the court analyzed the local authority’s accommodation placement policy and the individual circumstances of the appellant, including her children’s education and medical needs. It found that the authority had considered these factors and applied its policy reasonably, including prioritization bands and availability of suitable accommodation. The reviewing officer’s decision was detailed and addressed the main issues raised, providing sufficient reasons in line with established principles on adequacy of reasons.

In the second appeal, the court scrutinized the local authority’s policy and the review decision which explained the shortage of accommodation within the borough and Greater London, the necessity to prioritize applicants with higher need, and the resulting offer of accommodation outside London. The court rejected the challenge that the authority failed to explain why available accommodation nearby was not offered, concluding that the policy and decision letter adequately explained the allocation in accordance with priority criteria.

The court referenced key precedents, particularly Nzolameso, to emphasize that authorities must consider whether it is reasonably practicable to accommodate within the borough and provide reasons for decisions. It noted that while policies guide decisions, there must be room for exceptional cases. The court also stressed the importance of a benevolent and practical approach to interpreting review decisions prepared by experienced housing officers who are not lawyers.

Regarding the duty to give reasons, the court held that the statutory scheme prescribes when reasons must be given—principally at review stage—and rejected the imposition of a broader common law duty to give reasons at the point of offer. The statutory review mechanism is designed to prevent unfairness, and the court found no legal basis to require reasons earlier.

Ultimately, the court found that the first authority’s decision to offer accommodation outside the borough was lawful and supported by adequate reasons, while the second authority’s allocation policy and explanations were lawful and sufficiently clear despite the availability of some accommodation nearby.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to DISMISS the appeal of the first appellant and ALLOW the appeal of the second appellant.

For the first appellant, the court upheld the local authority’s decision, finding it had complied with its statutory duties and given adequate reasons. For the second appellant, the court quashed the review decision on the narrow ground that the local authority had failed to explain why a particular available property was not offered. However, on appeal, the higher court reversed this, holding that the explanation was sufficiently clear when viewed in context of the authority’s lawful policy and housing shortage.

The implications of this decision reinforce the principle that housing authorities must balance individual needs with resource constraints and that their lawful policies play a critical role in allocation decisions. The judgment also clarifies the scope of the duty to give reasons, limiting it to statutory requirements and emphasizing the protective role of the review process. No new precedent was created beyond applying and clarifying existing legal principles.