Hussaini v Islington London Borough Council (2025) EWCA Civ 22
Mr Hussaini was a refugee. He had been accommodated in Barking & Dagenham area. On grant of leave to remain, he applied as homeless to Islington. Islington decided he did not have a local connection to the borough and referred the application to Barking. Mr H sought a review and s.204 appeal but was unsuccessful on both. He appealed to the Court of Appeal.
He argued that his connections to Islington fell under ‘special circumstances’, citing para 10.1 of the Homeless Code of Guidance as saying that special circumstances
“might include the need to be near special medical or support services which are available only in a particular district”
He referred to his attendance at the Baobab Centre for Young Survivors in Exile, in Islington, which he attended 3 times a week and received therapy for PTSD. He also referred to his friendship with a University lecturer who lived just outside the Islington border, who he had met in Greece and who supported his application saying it was as if he was a member of her family. He also did some (albeit limited) paid work for the Baobab Centre.
Islington’s review decision stated in part:
“a) I have considered the possibility that you have a local connection with this authority by way of a ‘special circumstance.’
b) I have considered the representations on file regarding your support in Islington. I have further considered that the Code of Guidance states that special circumstances might include the need to be near special medical or support services which are available only in a particular district.
c) Your solicitors state that your involvement with the Baobab Centre equates to specialist support as envisaged within the Code of Guidance.
d) The Baobab Centre is based in Islington and its services are provided within the borough. However, access to the Baobab Centre and its services is not dependent on living in or near the borough.
e) I am further satisfied that the entirety of your engagement with the Centre has been whilst resident outside of Islington.
f) I am therefore satisfied that there is no need for you to be near the Baobab Centre to access their services.
g) I am further satisfied, that as per the Code of Guidance, there is no evidence of any ‘need to be near special medical or support services which are available only in a particular district.’
h) Your solicitors state that we have misdirected ourselves and should consider whether you have a local connection to the borough because of your need to receive treatment from the centre.
i) As above, I am satisfied that I have correctly considered the Code of Guidance in this regard and the evidence on file shows that there is no need to be near support from the Baobab Centre because it is only available in a particular district.
(…)
o) Your solicitors state that your online engagement throughout the pandemic was far from appropriate for therapeutic services and that your experience of therapy improved greatly when you were able to access face to face sessions.
p) Whilst this may be the case, it does not demonstrate a need to be near the Centre or resident in Islington; you have never been so whilst accessing these services.
(…)
z) The evidence on file does not show that you are unable to receive your current treatment, support or engage in your studies if residing outside if Islington; the opposite is confirmed. I am therefore satisfied that there is no evidence of ‘need’ to reside in Islington to be near a specialist support service or other reason.
aa) Whilst I am sympathetic to your wish to live closer, I am not satisfied that this a need and can find no special circumstances that require you to live in the borough.
bb) Considering all the information provided, I am not satisfied that you have a local connection by way of special circumstance.
cc) Taking the above information into account, I am therefore satisfied that the conditions for referral are met under s198(2)(a).”
(…)
“a) I am aware of your previous links with Islington; however, as above, I do not accept that they provide a local connection with the borough, in real terms.
b) I have considered the Code of Guidance at 10.14 which states ‘The overriding consideration should always be whether the applicant has a connection ‘in real terms’ with an area and the housing authority must consider the applicant’s individual circumstances, particularly any exceptional circumstances, before reaching a decision.’
c) I have considered whether your individual circumstances mean that you have a connection in ‘real terms’ and for the reasons provided above, even when considering your circumstances as a whole, I do not find this to be the case.
d) Having considered special circumstances, I am satisfied that there is no compelling reason that you reside in Islington rather than Barking and Dagenham or Haringey, where you have proven local connections.
e) I am further satisfied, having considered your solicitor’s representations, that you have a local connection to Haringey by way of residence, as you have been resident in temporary accommodation in Haringey for at least 6 out of the past 12 months.
f) I have therefore upheld the decision that you do not have a local connection to the London Borough of Islington but have varied the decision to refer your application under s198 Housing Act 1996, so the referral will now be to the London Borough of Haringey rather than to the London Borough of Dagenham and Redbridge.”
On appeal to the Court of Appeal, Mr H primarily argued that Islington’s review officer had decided on the basis that there was a threshold of a ‘need’ to live in a borough to establish a local connection.
The Court of Appeal said
- There was no threshold of a ‘need’ to live in a borough for a local connection to be made out, as per R v Eastleigh Borough Council, Ex p Betts (1983) 2 AC 613 and Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2001] UKHL 57.
- It was not clear that Islington’s officer had imposed such a threshold. The review officer was addressing submissions made by Mr H’s solicitors, but had not made ‘need to live’ into a threshold.
- Islington’s officer had considered whether the reasons advanced amounted to a special circumstance.
- Islington could have concluded there was a local connection on the evidence, but the test was whether the decision that he did not have such a connection was unreasonable. It was not. The council’s ‘margin of appreciation’ was not exceeded.
I do wonder about whether the Court should be using the term ‘margin of appreciation’ in this sense. In ECHR terms it’s leeway that the treaty/court allows to the legal jurisdictions within the treaty when conducting a balancing exercise between fundamental rights and the proportionality of those laws to achieve a legitimate aim. I think that’s very different to what’s going on in the case under discussion, which is an officer taking a decision on whether a duty is owed.