Ozbek v Ispwich Borough Council: CA 4 May 2006

The claimant applied to be housed as a homeless person. The authority sought to refer him to a different authority under s198. As an asylum seeker, he had been given assistance both in Portsmouth and Southampton before coming to Ipswich. He said that he had not gone to Southampton freely, but had been placed there pending dealing with his asylum claim, and that his brothers lived in Ipswich.
Held: The court restored the authority’s decision.The court emphasised ‘five points which are of importance in the context of the present appeal. First, that the statutory purpose underlying the provisions now found in sections 193(2), 198(2) and 200(3) and (4) of the 1996 Act is (so far as possible) to place the burden of providing accommodation for the homeless applicant upon the local housing authority with whose district the applicant has a real connection; and to relieve the authority with whose district the applicant has no real connection from that burden. Second, that the scheme by which that purpose is to be achieved depends, primarily, upon agreement between the authority to whom the application is made (the notifying authority) and the authority to whom the application is to be referred (the notified authority) as to whether the conditions for referral are met; and, in default of agreement, upon determination under arrangements prescribed by the Secretary of State. Third, that one purpose – indeed, perhaps, the principal purpose – of the Referral Guidelines and their predecessor, the Agreement on Procedures, is to facilitate agreement between authorities on the question whether the conditions for referral are met; or to provide a basis for speedy and inexpensive resolution of disputes between authorities on that question. Fourth, that that purpose is unlikely to be achieved unless authorities do follow the guidance which those guidelines provide by applying that guidance ‘generally to all applications which come before them’. And fifth, that an authority is not to be criticised for following that guidance in the individual case, provided that they have not closed their mind to the possibility that the particular facts of that case may require a departure from the guidance which they would apply more generally. ‘ It was acondition that the notifying authority could certify that there was no local connection.


Times 07-Jun-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 534




Housing Act 1996 199(6) 204, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 95


England and Wales


CitedBritish Oxygen Co Ltd v Board of Trade HL 15-Jul-1970
Cylinders containing hydrogen gas were being put on a trailer pulled by a tractor for the purpose of delivery to the premises of the purchaser. One of the issues before the court was whether the function of the hydrogen trailers and the cylinders . .
CitedRegina v Eastleigh Borough Council, Ex parte Betts; In re Betts CA 1983
Mr Betts appealed a refusal of accomodation by Eastliegh who had said he had no local connection, but had lived in Blaby.
Held: Lord Justice Stephenson the chief housing officer ‘did fetter the council’s decision by a rigid application of the . .
CitedRegina v Eastleigh Borough Council, Ex parte Betts; In re Betts HL 27-Jul-1983
Mr Betts applied to Eastleigh for accommodation under the 1977 Act. They said that he had no local connection and referred his application to Blaby where the applicant and his family had formerly been living. Blaby accepted the referral and offered . .
CitedLondon Borough of Tower Hamlets v Deugi CA 7-Mar-2006
The court considered whether a successful appeal against a local authority’s decision on the need for emergency housing should lead to the case being remitted to them for a further review. May LJ defined the question to be: ‘whether there was any . .
CitedAl-Ameri v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea; Osmani v London Borough of Harrow (Conjoined Appeals) HL 5-Feb-2004
The applicants had been asylum seekers, and obliged to live in Glasgow. Upon losing their asylum claim, but being given exceptional leave to remain, they sought to be rehoused by the appellants. The appellants had said that the applicants having . .
CitedCouncil of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service HL 22-Nov-1984
Exercise of Prerogative Power is Reviewable
The House considered an executive decision made pursuant to powers conferred by a prerogative order. The Minister had ordered employees at GCHQ not to be members of trades unions.
Held: The exercise of a prerogative power of a public nature . .
CitedRegina v Slough Borough Council Ex Parte Khan and Another QBD 30-Jan-1995
A Local Authority had to consider all possible local connections before passing an applicant for housing under the Act to another other Local Authority for assistance. . .
CitedRegina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte Avdic QBD 1996
The applicant challenged a referral of her application for housing as a homeless person by Hammersmith back to Kirklees from where she had moved. She had a cousin in Hammersmith.
Held: Her application for judical review failed. Tucker J: . .
CitedRegina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte Avdic CA 2-Jan-1996
A refugee from Bosnia moved from Kirklees to London, where she applied for accomodation as being homeless. Hammersmith accepted that she was owed a duty, but referred her back to Kirklees in September. Her solicitors then sent in more material which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.241443