Council defends judicial review over decision not to consider out of time request for review of suitability of property offered

A claimant has lost his application for judicial review in which be argued that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea acted irrationally in refusing him a review of the suitability of a property he was offered.

Hugo Keith KC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, said in his judgment that the claimant had failed to establish that the council had acted unlawfully or perversely when it refuse this request for a review as being out of time.

The claimant applied for judicial review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996.

He came to the United Kingdom from Guinea and was granted refugee status in 2019. He suffers from a number of mental health vulnerabilities and illnesses, including complex post-traumatic stress disorder.

After being accommodated in a single-person unit of supported accommodation, the claimant discovered he had a son who travelled from the United States to join him.

His son began studies at a school in west London and lived with him in the unit.

The council found the son's residence in the accommodation was contrary to the licence issued and the claimant was evicted in November 2023.

He applied to the council for housing assistance under Part 7 of the Act, and it decided he was owed a duty under section 189B(2) of the Act.

A personalised housing plan was issued and he was made a final accommodation offer of accommodation in north London.

Mr Keith noted there was a dispute between the parties as to whether the claimant refused that offer, but the council deemed he had and said its duty towards him had ended.

On 16 April 2024 the claimant requested a review of this decision, which had been made on 21 March 2024. But on 17 April the council said the request was outside the 21-day period allowed and that it was unwilling to exercise its discretion under section 202(3) of the Act to extend time.

The claimant asked the High Court to quash the council’s decision and to make a mandatory order obliging it to accept his request for a review.

It was argued for the claimant that the council’s decision of 17 April was 'Wednesbury unreasonable' because there were substantial prospects of success, the period by which the request was out of time was minimal and there were good reasons for the delay

The claimant said he did not reject the offer of accommodation, and the council’s case in this regard was inconsistent and the property was plainly unsuitable.

He also argued the council breached the code by failing to consider the potential impact on the health and wellbeing of him or his son, and by offering a property which unreasonably failed to retain established links with schools, doctors, social workers and other key services and support.

The council argued it properly considered both the delay and the reasons for it and said the decision not to extend time was well within the bounds of a reasonable authority’s wide discretion.

The judge concluded: “I am unable to accept [the] submission that RBKC's decision not to accede to the request for a review was 'unreasonable in the sense that the court considers it to be a decision that no reasonable body could have come to’.”

He said the judicial review concerned only the decision not to extend time, not the merits of the dispute over refusal itself, which in any event he could not decide in the absence of evidence from either side.

The judge said: “It is perfectly conceivable that RBKC would have concluded that, even if the claimant had not expressly refused the offer, his concerns over its suitability nevertheless demonstrated that, by implication, he had turned down the property.

“Moreover, it would have been entitled…to have concluded, based on the terms of the offer letter of 15 March, that in the absence of a positive acceptance within 24 hours of the viewing the claimant had refused the offer of accommodation.”

Although the review request was made only five days out of time, the claimant had received repeated reminders of the deadline and “could not have been unaware of the right to request a review, and of the time period within which it had to be made”.

He concluded: “Not without considerable sympathy for the claimant's position, I am bound to conclude that the defendant's decision not to accede to the request for a review was not unlawful.

“Whilst it could permissibly have been different, it was not irrational or perverse, or in breach of a legitimate expectation. The application for judicial review must be refused.”

Mark Smulian