The appeals in the separate cases of the two claimants were heard together, where each challenged a decision of the County Court that the respective local authority had fulfilled its duty pursuant to section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 when offering the relevant claimant suitable accommodation. In the first case the claimant appealed on the ground, inter alia, that the statutory duty had not been complied with because the local authority had failed to offer accommodation “as close as possible” to where the claimant had previously been living. In the second case the claimant appealed, asserting that the local authority had : (i) failed to investigate whether two-bedroom accommodation might be offered; (ii) failed to assess sufficiently the issue of how a move 20 miles away might affect the claimant’s daughter; (iii) made an offer which did not qualify as a “PRSO” (Private rented sector offer). The Court of Appeal also gave permission to appeal on a further ground founded on the recent decision in Norton v Haringey London Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1340, [2022] PTSR 1802 whereby she submitted that the offer could not be affirmed since the local authority had not complied with its obligation to inform her of the impact of section 195A(2) of the Housing Act 1996, as had been the case similarly in the Norton case.
On the claimants’ appeals —
Held, (1) appeal allowed in first claim. In a case in which a local authority was not able to provide accommodation within its borough it was obliged to find accommodation “as close as possible” to where a claimant had been living. The policy of the local authority had been lawful but it was not established that the local authority had duly implemented it or complied with the duty imposed upon it (paras 48, 53–54, 93, 94).
(2) In the second claim, (i) the local authority had not acted irrationally in determining that nothing less than a three-bedroom property would be suitable for the claimant and her family. (ii) The local authority did take account of the claimant’s concerns about the impact of the proposed move on her daughter; and there was no further obligation to investigate. (iii) The offer made did qualify as a PRSO. It was an offer of an assured shorthold tenancy by a private landlord notwithstanding that the particular landlord had not been named. (iv) But having granted the claimant permission to appeal on the new ground, and following authority, the appeal was to be allowed because the offer could not be held to be valid where the local authority had not informed the claimant of the impact of section 195A(2) of the Housing Act 1996 when it made its offer to her (paras 58, 62–63, 64, 69–72, 79, 91–92, 93, 94).
Jamie Burton KC and Siân McGibbon (instructed by Camden Community Law Centre ) for the claimant, Zaman, in the first case.
Nicholas Grundy KC and Michael Mullin (instructed by Solicitor, Waltham Forest London Borough Council) for the local authority in the first case.
Martin Hodgson and Daniel Grütters (instructed by Lawstop) for the claimant, Uduezue, in the second case.
Riccardo Calzavara (instructed by Solicitor, Bexley London Borough Council) for the local authority in the second case.