Paley v London Borough of Waltham Forest

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from an order dismissing the appeal of the Appellant against the decision of the local authority to offer her accommodation in Stoke-on-Trent to discharge their main housing duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 ("HA 1996"). The Appellant is a single parent with four children who had lived in the local authority area for 35 years before being evicted in 2016. Following her homelessness application, the local authority accepted a main housing duty and placed her family in temporary accommodation outside the local area. The local authority later offered her a private rented property in Stoke-on-Trent, some 161 miles away, as a means to end their housing duty. The Appellant challenged the suitability of this offer on grounds of location and affordability. The local authority reviewed and upheld their decision, and the appeal was dismissed by the judge. Permission was granted for a second appeal focusing on whether the local authority made proper inquiries and conducted an appropriate objective assessment of affordability in discharging their duty.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the local authority made proper inquiries and conducted an appropriate objective assessment of the affordability of the private rental property offered to the Appellant sufficient to discharge their duty under section 193(2) HA 1996.
2. Whether the right of an applicant to make submissions during a review process satisfies the local authority's duty to make inquiries under section 184(1) HA 1996.
3. Whether an affordability exercise can be properly conducted without direct input from the applicant.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The local authority's reliance on the Appellant's right to make submissions during the review process does not satisfy their duty to make necessary inquiries, particularly welfare-related inquiries under section 11(2) Children Act 2004.
• The local authority failed to make specific inquiries about important family relationships, such as the role of the children's father, which could affect the suitability of the accommodation's location.
• No affordability assessment should be conducted without direct input from the Appellant, and the local authority's affordability exercise was flawed because it was based on figures prepared without her involvement.
• The local authority's affordability assessment failed to properly consider reasonable living expenses, including transport costs and debt repayments, thereby rendering the accommodation unsuitable.

Local Authority's Arguments

• The local authority contends that they made adequate inquiries, including a telephone conversation with the Appellant and consideration of submissions during the review process.
• They argue that it is appropriate to rely on an updated affordability assessment prepared without direct input from the Appellant, especially where the Appellant did not challenge the figures during the review.
• The local authority submits that some expenses, such as transport costs, may not be reasonable given the proximity of schools and amenities to the offered property.
• They maintain that the offered property was affordable based on an objective assessment of the Appellant's income and expenditure.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the local authority's compliance with their duty under section 193(2) HA 1996 to provide suitable accommodation, focusing on two key aspects: the reasonableness of inquiries made and the adequacy of the affordability assessment.

Regarding inquiries, the court held that the local authority's process, including a telephone conversation with the Appellant, the use of a 'minded to' letter, and the opportunity for the Appellant to make submissions during the review, constituted a proper inquiry process. The court rejected the argument that the right to make submissions does not satisfy the duty to inquire, emphasizing that the 'minded to' letter is a proactive tool to elicit further relevant information. The court found no basis to conclude that no reasonable authority could have failed to make further inquiries, particularly as the Appellant did not raise certain matters such as the role of the children's father during the process.

On affordability, the court found that the local authority and the judge erred by deeming the affordability exercise properly conducted simply because the Appellant did not challenge the figures. The court emphasized that affordability assessments must be objective, evidence-based, and tailored to the applicant's particular circumstances, including reasonable living expenses such as transport and debt repayments. The local authority's affordability assessment omitted significant expenditures and relied on a broad 'other' category insufficient to cover reasonable costs. The court highlighted that the benefit cap's impact on the Appellant's disposable income must be considered and that an affordability budget that does not allow for essential expenses is unsustainable and irrational.

Consequently, the court concluded that the local authority failed to take relevant matters into account in assessing affordability and that no reasonable authority could have concluded the property was affordable on the basis of the assessment provided.

Holding and Implications

The court made the following determinations:

• Ground 1 (Reasonableness of Inquiries): The appeal was dismissed. The local authority's inquiries were deemed sufficient and lawful.
• Ground 2 (Affordability Assessment): The appeal was allowed. The local authority's approach to the affordability exercise was flawed, having wrongly deemed it properly conducted in the absence of a specific challenge by the Appellant.

As a result, the local authority has not discharged its main housing duty under section 193(2) HA 1996 by offering the Stoke property. The Appellant and her children remain entitled to suitable accommodation, and the local authority must conduct a proper affordability assessment and/or identify an alternative affordable property. No new legal precedent was set, but the decision reinforces the necessity for local authorities to conduct objective, evidence-based affordability assessments and make reasonable inquiries as part of their statutory duties.