Case of Bantamagbari v Westminster and Southwark: Legal Duties, Referrals, and Judicial Review in Homelessness Disputes

Citation: [2003] EWHC 1350 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of Bantamagbari v Westminster and Southwark [2003] EWHC 1350 (Admin) offers valuable insights into legal issues around homelessness, local authority responsibility, and judicial review. The judgment explores the obligations imposed on local authorities by the Housing Act 1996 when dealing with homelessness applications, procedures for inter-authority referrals, and the appropriateness of judicial review as a remedy for addressing disputes between local authorities.

Key Facts

Mr. Bashir Bantamagbari, the claimant, applied to the Southwark Law Centre for housing assistance, claiming homelessness. Southwark concluded that he was homeless, eligible for assistance, had a priority need due to ill health, and was not intentionally homeless. As per section 198 of the Housing Act 1996, Southwark referred the claimant to Westminster based on previous residence, triggering Westminster’s obligations under section 200 of the Act. Westminster, however, questioned Southwark’s decision on the claimant’s intentionality of homelessness and refused to accept the referral. The claimant sought judicial review of Westminster’s decision.

Several legal principles are crucial in understanding this case:

  1. Duty to Enquire (Housing Act 1996, s.184): Local authorities must investigate homelessness claims. The notifying authority (Southwark) must decide the criteria under section 193, including intentionality (R v Slough BC, ex parte London Borough of Ealing).

  2. Referral Between Local Authorities (Housing Act 1996, s.198 & s.200): The system permits referrals to a local authority with stronger local connections. When a referral is made, the notified authority (Westminster) is obligated to provide accommodation until eligibility is reconsidered.

  3. Judicial Review Timeliness and Merits: Any challenge to an authority’s decision ideally should be pursued promptly through judicial review. If a notifying authority’s decision is flawed, it can be challenged, but delay may preclude such challenge (R v Newham LBC, ex parte Tower Hamlets LBC).

  4. Non-Retrospection of Decision (R v Brent BC, ex parte Muhammad Sadiq): Once an authority reaches a decision favoring a claimant under s.193, it cannot reverse this barring fraud or changed circumstances.

  5. Inter-Authority Agreements on Disputes (Housing Act 1996, s.198(5)): Authorities may agree on handling disputes but cannot confer powers not provided by law.

Outcomes

The court held:

  • Westminster’s refusal to accept the referral was unlawful.
  • Southwark’s original decision that the claimant was not intentionally homeless was valid.
  • Westminster’s defense strategy was flawed, as they sought an indirect way to challenge Southwark’s decision.
  • Southwark’s lack of responsiveness contributed to the prolongation of litigation.
  • Westminster was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, while no costs order was made between the local authorities.

Conclusion

The judgment emphasizes the strict procedures local authorities must follow when dealing with homelessness applications and inter-authority referrals. The decision reaffirms the importance of timely judicial review to contest decisions if grounds exist and highlights the challenges of inter-authority cooperation. The court found Westminster acted unlawfully in its refusal to assume responsibility for the claimant, and in doing so, set clear standards for the proper conduct of local authorities in carrying out their statutory duties. Notably, the judgment underscored that once a decision is lawfully made in favor of a homelessness claimant, it is not prone to retrospective change without a substantive basis.