Ofori-Addo v London Borough of Haringey

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the interpretation and application of sections 202 and 204 of the Housing Act 1996 (the Act) in the context of a final accommodation offer made by a local housing authority (the respondent) to an applicant (the appellant), a single mother with two disabled children. The respondent made a final accommodation offer of a three-bedroom house, which the appellant refused on grounds of suitability. The appellant requested a review of the suitability decision under section 202(1)(h) of the Act.

The respondent's review decision upheld the suitability of the accommodation, concluding that the relief duty under section 189B(2) ended and the main housing duty under section 193 no longer applied. The appellant appealed this decision to the County Court pursuant to section 204(1)(a), challenging the conclusion that no further duty was owed after refusal of the offer.

The County Court dismissed the appellant's appeal. The appellant then appealed to the higher court with leave, focusing on two grounds related to the interpretation of the duties owed after refusal of a final accommodation offer and whether the local authority should consider events subsequent to the decision in determining duties owed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the respondent erred in concluding that, pursuant to section 193A(2) and (3) of the Act, no further duty was owed to the appellant under Part VII following the ending of the relief duty after refusal of a final accommodation offer.
2. Whether the County Court judge erred in rejecting the argument that the local authority must take into account events surrounding and subsequent to the decision when considering what other duties may be owed under Part VII of the Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The respondent failed to make a decision under section 184 of the Act regarding what duties, if any, it owed after the relief duty ended and the main housing duty ceased.
• The respondent was obliged to consider whether a duty under section 190(2) arose due to the appellant being intentionally homeless with a priority need after refusal of the offer.
• The appellant contended that the review should have included consideration of all duties owed, not solely the suitability of the accommodation.

Respondent's Arguments

• The appellant only requested a review under section 202(1)(h) concerning suitability, so the review officer was not obliged to consider other duties or eligibility issues.
• The respondent had already made a clear decision under section 184 that no further duty was owed following refusal of the final accommodation offer, and no review was requested of that decision.
• If the appellant was dissatisfied with any decision on eligibility or scope of duty, the correct procedure was to request a separate review under section 202(1)(a) or (b), which was not done.
• The statutory review and appeal process under sections 202 and 204 does not provide a route to challenge a failure to make a decision on scope of duty; judicial review would be the appropriate remedy.
• Even if a duty under section 190(2) arose, the appellant had already received a significant period of interim accommodation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ravichandran v Lewisham LBC [2010] EWCA Civ 755	Clarification that multiple decisions under section 202(1) can be reviewed concurrently and the distinction between reviews of suitability and of duty owed.	The court relied on this case to emphasize that a review request must specify the decision under section 202(1) being challenged and that suitability reviews do not require reconsideration of duty scope.
Temur v Hackney LBC [2014] EWCA Civ 877	On the scope of review under section 202, holding that the reviewer can confirm or change decisions, including decisions less favourable to the applicant.	The court considered Temur but rejected the appellant's expansive interpretation that a review under one subsection requires wholesale reconsideration of all duties and decisions not specified in the review request.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by analyzing the statutory framework, particularly the duties under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, focusing on the relief duty under section 189B(2), the main housing duty under section 193, and the consequences of refusal of a final accommodation offer under section 193A.

The court emphasized the statutory distinction between types of decisions subject to review under section 202(1), noting that a review must be made with reference to specific decisions identified in the statute, such as suitability of accommodation (section 202(1)(h)) or scope of duty owed (section 202(1)(b)).

The appellant had requested a review solely on suitability grounds under section 202(1)(h). The court found that the respondent conducted the review accordingly and was not required to consider or decide on other duties not raised in the review request.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the respondent should have made a decision under section 184 on the scope of duties after the relief duty ended, or that the review should have encompassed such a decision. It held that if the respondent had failed to make such a decision, judicial review would be the appropriate remedy rather than a statutory appeal under sections 202 and 204.

The court also agreed with the County Court judge's reasoning that requiring review officers to conduct comprehensive reconsiderations beyond the scope of the review request would be unduly burdensome and inefficient, potentially leading to speculative or irrelevant considerations.

Finally, the court noted that the respondent had made clear in prior correspondence the consequences of refusal of the final accommodation offer, including ending the relief and main housing duties and the absence of further offers. The appellant did not seek a review of those decisions.

Holding and Implications

The court dismissed the appeal.

The holding confirms that a review under section 202(1) of the Housing Act 1996 must be confined to the specific decision(s) identified in the review request. A review of suitability under section 202(1)(h) does not require reconsideration of the scope of duties owed under other provisions such as section 184. If an applicant wishes to challenge a decision on eligibility or duty scope, a separate review request under the appropriate subsection is necessary.

The decision underscores the importance of procedural clarity and circumscription of statutory reviews and appeals, preventing expansion of issues beyond those expressly raised. It also clarifies that failure by a local authority to make a decision on duty scope is not remediable via the statutory review and appeal process but may require judicial review.

There are no broader new precedents set by this decision; its direct effect is to uphold the respondent's approach and the County Court's dismissal of the appellant's statutory appeal.