Varying a decision taken under s. 202 of the Housing Act 1996

In Ealing LBC v Purewal the Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against a county court judgment varying an authority’s decision under s.202, Housing Act 1996, that an applicant was not homeless so as to provide that the applicant was homeless.

Following the approach in Tower Hamlets LBC v Deugi [2006] H.L.R. 28, CA, in considering whether to vary the decision, or merely to quash it, the question for the court was whether there was any real prospect that the authority, acting rationally and with the benefit of further enquiry, might decide that the applicant was not homeless.

The respondent was a young woman who was wheelchair-bound because she had fractured her spine when jumping from a first floor window to escape a violent ex-partner. She was granted an assured shorthold tenancy of a flat in Northampton by a housing association, where she lived with her young son.

In February 2010, she was seriously sexually assaulted by a male neighbour who lived four doors away. In July 2010, he allegedly raped her in her home. In September 2010, she reported the matter to the police and made a statement.

In October 2011, she applied to the authority for assistance under Pt 7, Housing Act 1996, on the basis that it was not reasonable for her to continue to occupy her home. That month, the authority decided that she was not homeless. She requested a review. On May 9, 2012, the authority upheld the decision.

The respondent appealed to the county court. The appeal bundle included her statement to the police and other police documents that the authority had neither obtained nor considered before reaching their decision.

The judge allowed the appeal on the ground that the appellants had not taken account of relevant evidence, and having read the statement to the police, concluded that the decision was perverse and that the only decision that could be made was that it was not reasonable for the respondent to continue to occupy the property. He varied the review decision to find that the authority owed her a full housing duty.

The authority appealed against the judge’s decision to vary the order.

The Court of Appeal held that the judge had been wrong to decide that the review was perverse on the basis of evidence that was not before the review officer. The statement to the police gave rise to various possible enquiries which the authority were entitled to make. It was quite impossible to conclude that there was no real prospect that the appellants, acting rationally, and with the benefit of further enquiries, would decide that the rape did not take place and therefore the property was reasonable for the respondent to continue to occupy. Accordingly, the order below was varied so that the review was quashed and the decision was remitted to the authority for a further review.

Toby Vanhegan is a barrister at Arden Chambers and appeared for the respondent. He can be contacted on 020 7242 4244 or by This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..