Adesotu v Lewisham London Borough Council

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, a single parent of three young children, applied for homelessness assistance from the Respondent local council in 2017. The council initially provided interim accommodation and subsequently notified her in May 2018 that she was owed the main housing duty under the Housing Act 1996 Part 7, which required the council to secure suitable accommodation for her occupation. The council offered temporary accommodation at a property leased under a Private Sector Leasing arrangement, but the Appellant refused the offer citing concerns including distance from her children’s school and safety issues. Despite communications and a review process, the council concluded that the accommodation was suitable and discharged their duty on the basis of the Appellant’s refusal.

The Appellant appealed the council’s review decision to the County Court under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996, alleging breaches of the Equality Act 2010 and misdirections in law relating to the suitability of accommodation and the nature of her refusal. The County Court judge struck out certain grounds of appeal concerning claims of discrimination and lack of jurisdiction to determine disputed facts, granting permission to appeal and transferring the matter to the Court of Appeal. The Equality and Human Rights Commission was permitted to intervene by written submissions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the County Court has jurisdiction under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 to determine allegations of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 in a statutory homelessness appeal.
2. Whether the County Court has jurisdiction to make findings of fact in a section 204 appeal or is limited to points of law arising from the reviewing officer’s decision.
3. Whether the grounds of appeal alleging discrimination and procedural unfairness properly arise from the reviewing officer’s decision and thus fall within the scope of a section 204 appeal.
4. The proper interpretation of the relationship between section 204 appeals and claims of unlawful discrimination or judicial review under the Equality Act 2010.
5. The extent to which antecedent policies or practices of the local authority may be challenged in a section 204 appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that the County Court’s jurisdiction under section 204 should include consideration of discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010, effectively treating the appeal as akin to judicial review.
• She argued that the council’s policies were discriminatory, including the short and inflexible time limits for accepting accommodation and the treatment of equivocal acceptance as refusal.
• The Appellant relied on case law supporting a broad scope for section 204 appeals, allowing challenges beyond pure legal interpretation to include factual and procedural issues.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Respondent council argued that the County Court lacks jurisdiction to determine discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 within a section 204 appeal, as such claims must be brought under Part 9 of the Equality Act or by judicial review.
• They submitted that section 204 appeals are limited to points of law arising from the reviewing officer’s decision and do not permit the court to make findings of disputed fact.
• The council contended that the discrimination grounds did not arise from the reviewing officer’s decision but from antecedent policies or practices and that the Appellant had not properly raised discrimination at the review stage.
• They further argued that the appeal did not amount to a claim for judicial review as defined by the Equality Act 2010.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court considered the statutory framework governing homelessness assistance appeals under the Housing Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010. It emphasized that section 204 appeals to the County Court are confined to points of law arising from the reviewing officer’s decision and do not extend to making findings of disputed fact. The court relied on binding authority establishing that discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 must be brought under Part 9 of that Act and are not properly determined within a section 204 appeal, which is not a claim for judicial review.

The court rejected the Appellant’s argument that section 204 appeals should be treated as falling within the judicial review exception of the Equality Act 2010. It highlighted the distinction between judicial review proceedings and statutory appeals, referencing the binding decision in Hamnett which clarified that statutory appeals are not claims for judicial review.

Regarding the Housing Act point, the court reaffirmed that the County Court’s jurisdiction on section 204 appeals is limited to legal questions and cannot involve the court acting as a finder of primary facts. It acknowledged that while judicial review proceedings may exceptionally allow oral evidence, such instances are rare and do not alter the fundamental nature of section 204 appeals.

The court addressed the question of whether the discrimination grounds arose from the reviewing officer’s decision and found that the Appellant had not raised these issues at the review stage, nor were they so obvious that the reviewing officer should have considered them. Consequently, these grounds fell outside the proper scope of the appeal.

Finally, the court considered the antecedent policy point but declined to resolve the controversy in this case, noting it was not determinative here. The court observed that the Appellant had multiple opportunities to accept or reject the offer and to seek review, and that the fact-specific issues remaining would be for the County Court to determine on return.

Holding and Implications

The court DISMISSED the appeal, affirming the County Court judge’s order striking out Grounds 1, 2, and 3(c) of the Appellant’s appeal on jurisdictional grounds.

The direct effect is that discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010 cannot be raised within a section 204 homelessness appeal in the County Court but must be pursued separately under Part 9 of the Equality Act or by judicial review. The County Court’s role in section 204 appeals is confined to points of law arising from the reviewing officer’s decision and does not extend to fact-finding or challenges to antecedent policies unless properly raised and falling within the statutory scope.

No new precedent was set beyond confirming existing authority on the jurisdictional limits of section 204 appeals and the distinction between statutory appeals and claims for judicial review or discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010.