Sahra Moge v London Brough of Ealing
[2023] EWCA Civ 464
Nadia Zaman v London Borough Of Waltham Forest
24 March 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 322
Court of Appeal
Two women were offered faraway homes by their councils. The court ruled the councils didn't try hard enough to find closer homes and didn't give the women all the information they needed about their rights.
Key Facts
- •Ms Zaman was offered accommodation in Stoke-on-Trent, 160 miles from her home, by Waltham Forest Council.
- •Ms Uduezue was offered accommodation in Chatham, Kent, over 20 miles from her home, by Bexley Council.
- •Both offers were private rented sector offers (PRSOs) intended to discharge the councils' housing duties under Section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996.
- •Both appellants refused the offers, arguing they were unsuitable due to distance and disruption to family and childcare.
- •Both councils upheld their decisions, leading to appeals to the County Court and subsequently the Court of Appeal.
Legal Principles
Local authorities have a duty to secure accommodation within their district, so far as reasonably practicable (Section 208(1) Housing Act 1996).
Housing Act 1996, Section 208(1)
When out-of-borough placement is necessary, authorities must generally try to place households as close as possible to their previous residence (Nzolameso).
Nzolameso v Westminster City Council [2015] UKSC 22
A review decision must show proper consideration of relevant matters required by the Act and the Code (Nzolameso).
Nzolameso v Westminster City Council [2015] UKSC 22
A local authority can discharge its duty by offering suitable PRSO accommodation, even if the applicant refuses (Localism Act 2011).
Localism Act 2011, Section 148
In determining suitability, the location of accommodation must be considered, including distance from the authority's district and disruption to employment, caring responsibilities, or education (Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012).
Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012, Article 2
Local authorities must have regard to the Homelessness Code of Guidance.
Housing Act 1996, Section 182
For a PRSO to be valid, the applicant must be informed of the consequences of acceptance or refusal and the right to review, and in non-restricted cases, the effect of a further application within two years under Section 195A (Housing Act 1996).
Housing Act 1996, Section 193(7AA), (7AB)
Outcomes
Ms Zaman's appeal allowed.
Waltham Forest failed to demonstrate that it had sought accommodation closer to the borough than Stoke-on-Trent, despite its policy to do so. The evidence suggested a reliance on Stoke-on-Trent without sufficient justification.
Ms Uduezue's appeal allowed.
Bexley failed to inform Ms Uduezue of the effect of Section 195A(2) of the Housing Act 1996, rendering the PRSO invalid and maintaining the council's duty.
Similar Cases
Katie-Leigh Webb-Harnden v London Borough of Waltham Forest
[2023] EWCA Civ 992
Sabhya Bano, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Waltham Forest
[2024] EWHC 654 (Admin)
Amina Ahamed, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Haringey
[2023] EWCA Civ 975
ZRR, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Bexley
[2024] EWHC 2073 (Admin)