Socrattes Ofori-Addo v London Borough of Haringey (2025) EWCA Civ 277

A second appeal from a section 204 appeal. Ms O-A had applied to Haringey as homeless and was in temporary accommodation under the section 189B Housing Act 1996 relief duty. An offer of a property was made, a three bedroom private assured shorthold tenancy. The offer was stated to be under section 193A(4), a final offer, and set out that, if the offer was refused

In either case we will proceed to end the Council’s Relief duty towards you. The S193 main duty will also not apply

Ms O-A did not accept that the property was suitable and sought a s.202 review. This found that the property was suitable, but made no reference to the scope of Haringey’s duties to Ms O-A, save that there was no ongoing duty to provide accommodation as the  s.189B relief duty had ended and the s.193 main duty duty not apply.  Haringey refused to accommodate pending s.204 appeal and Ms O-A was evicted. One of the grounds of that appeal was that Haringey

erred in concluding that by operation of s. 193A(2) and (3), no further duty arose following discharge of the relief duty (ground 3);

The s.204 appeal was compromised with Haringey withdrawing the decision and making a fresh decision.

The fresh decision, stating that among the documents considered were the appeal documents and counsel’s skeleton for Ms O-A,  upheld the suitability of the property, and again stated that by operation of s.193A(3) the refusal had ended the relief duty and the s.193 main duty.

The s.204 appeal of that review decision had broadly 3 grounds. Two were concerned with the suitability of the property, and the third was that:

the review decision was deficient in failing to go on to consider what duty, if any, the respondent owed to the appellant as a person with priority needs notwithstanding the finding of suitability.

The s.204 appeal was dismissed on all grounds. Ms O-A brought this second appeal on the issue of the review decision being deficient in failing to consider what duty, if any, Haringey still owed to Ms O-A. It was accepted that the relief duty and the s.193 duty had been ended, but Haringey had failed to consider any duty owed to the intentionally homeless in priority need under s.190.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Contrary to Ms O-A’s interpretation of Temur v Hackney LBC (2014) EWCA Civ 877, a review decision was a review of a particular decision, not of the whole of the Local Authority’s relationship with the applicant.

Here the review requested and made was of the suitability decision. There was no request for a review of the decision that the relief and s.193 duty had ended, or of what duty was owed.

The terms of Haringey’s letters were clear as to the effect of refusal, rightly or wrongly, but if wrong, then the recourse was judicial review as to the failure to make the relevant decision. If the letters were in effect a s.184 decision then a review should have been requested of that decision.

I would also agree with the Judge’s general observation at (39) that the reviewing officer was not required in his decision letter dealing with the review of the respondent’s decision on suitability to deal in an anticipatory manner with “things that may or may not happen om the context of obligations and considerations that are not engaged on a particular review.” This is not to go behind the respondent’s concession that there may still be an obligation upon the local housing authority to make a decision pursuant to section 184 about whether it owes any other (and if so what) duty to the applicant. Rather, it is to recognise that the statutory route of appeal pursuant to section 204 does not provide a route by which to mount the challenge attempted by the appellant in this case.

Appeal dismissed.