The Mayor and Burgesses of The London Borough of Wandsworth v Jerome Young (2025) EWCA Civ 1336

There is a lot going on in this Court of Appeal appeal of a possession order. The two primary issues were i) whether a notification of review rights of a decision to discharge the homelessness duty had to be given in an offer of final accommodation and/or in a review decision upholding the suitability of offered accommodation, and ii) whether that failure, if such it was, could be a defence to a possession claim for the temporary accommodation.

Mr Young was owed the main s.193 Housing Act 1996 housing duty. Wandsworth made a final offer of accommodation under section 193(7), notifying Mr Young that accepting the offer would discharge the authority’s homelessness duty. Mr Young apparently signed a tenancy agreement, but did not move in, instead requesting a review of suitability. The review found that property was suitable and stated that the s.193 duty was discharged. Mr Young remained in his temporary accommodation. The Council served notice to quit and brought the present possession proceedings.

Mr Young’s defence, which was dismissed at first instance and on first appeal, was that the council had not notified him of his right to a review of the decision to discharge duty, so the main housing duty continued.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the second appeal.

Section 202(3) Housing Act 1996 did not require the Council to notify an applicant of a decision that the main housing duty had been discharged, and did not impose a requirement that the Council inform the applicant of a right to request a review.

S.193 prescribed ways in which the duty could end, but also was express about when the Council had to inform the applicant as to the right to request a review ( s.193(5), (7) and (7AB) – all on a review of suitability). The Council did not have to do more than s.193 prescribed.

S.202(3) did not require notification of a right to request a review

Section 202(3) of the 1996 Act states that a request for review “must be made before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which [the applicant] is notified of the authority’s decision or such longer period as the authority may in writing allow”. This means that, once an applicant has been notified of a decision, he must request a review within 21 days unless the local housing authority agrees otherwise. Notification of a decision therefore plays an important role. Without it, the time limit for which section 202(3) provides will not apply. Section 202(3) does not, however, provide for an authority to be under an obligation to notify an applicant of a decision, let alone impose a requirement that an authority inform an applicant of a right to request a review. While section 202(3) refers to an applicant being “notified of the authority’s decision” (emphasis added), there is no reference to notification of a right to request a review.

Section 184(3) did not apply, as that was concerned with initial inquiries into potential homelessness, not where a s.193 duty had been accepted.

R (Bano) v Waltham Forest LBC (2025) EWCA Civ 92  (our note) followed

If this was wrong, it was anyway hard to see circumstances in which it could afford a defence in possession proceedings.

In Tower Hamlets LBC v Rahanara Begum (2005) EWCA Civ 116, the Court of appeal had found

that it had been open to the defendant to request a review under section 202 of the 1996 Act or to appeal under section 204, that the District Judge ought to have concluded that it was now too late for her to do so and that, as a result, he should have dealt with the claim on the basis that the claimant’s decision that it owed no further duty to house the defendant was correct.

In Bano, the Court of Appeal had found judicial review was not appropriate where rights of review and appeal to the County Court could have been utilised.

Here

There is no suggestion that Mr Young was not made aware of the Council’s understanding that the main housing duty had come to an end. Section 202(3) required him to request any review of such a decision within 21 days of notification unless the Council allowed a longer period, but he neither requested a review within 21 days nor has ever asked the Council to agree to an extension of time. As Mr Bates stressed, Mr Young was not told of any right to review at the time, but the Council did not issue its claim until more than five months after it had served the notice to quit and, by the date the matter came before District Judge Daley, more than three years had elapsed since Mr Young had been told of the review decision. Even taking account of the fact that Mr Young was not alerted to the possibility of a review by the Council, he had had ample opportunity to request one and the circumstances were not such as could, exceptionally, make it permissible for him to pursue any challenge to the Council’s view in the possession proceedings rather than via the review and appeal procedures for which Parliament has provided.

And in any event, there was no appeal of the finding that Mr Young had accepted the offer of accommodation, so even if there was a review it could not change the decision that the Council’s duty was discharged.

Appeal dismissed.