Warsame and Warsame v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 25 Jun 1999

The appellants refused the authority’s offer of accommodation under Part VI of the 1996 Act, saying it was not suitable. After the authority had informed them that if they did not accept the offer, the authority’s duty to house them would cease, requested a review under section 202(1)(b) of the authority’s decision that its duty to house the appellants had ceased. The review panel upheld the authority’s decision. The County Court dismissed his appeal finding no jurisdiction to entertain it because there was no provision in section 202 to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation offered under Part VI.
Held: The tenant’s appeal succeeded. The judge not given due weight to the width of section 202(1)(b). Section 202(1)(b) is directed to the question whether a duty arises The result of the review was that the local authority was confirming a decision that there was no longer any duty owed to the appellants under section 193, or otherwise under Part VII of the Act. A county court was given jurisdiction by the Act to hear an appeal against a determination by the local authority that it had satisfied its obligation toward an applicant for housing under the homelessness provisions and had no further obligation to assist. The process had two stages, the request for a review by the authority itself, and then an appeal to the County Court.


Chadwick LJ


Gazette 14-Jul-1999, Times 21-Jul-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1691, [2000] 1 WLR 969


Housing Act 1996 204 202(1)


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Rahanara Begum CA 11-Feb-2005
The applicant sought housing as a homeless person. Temporary accommodation was provided, and an offer of permanent accommodation was made but rejected. The council then sought possession of the temporary accommodation. The applicant responded that . .
CitedSlater v London Borough of Lewisham CA 12-Apr-2006
The applicant was heavily pregnant when she was offered a first floor one bedroomed flat. She rejected it.
Held: When a housing authority reviewed its decision on the applicant’s decision not to accept the accommodation offered, that review . .
AppliedRavichandran and Another v London Borough of Lewisham CA 2-Jul-2010
The claimant appealed against an order confirming a review of the decision that the local authority owed no futher duty to her under section 193. She had rejected the house offered as unsuitable for medical reasons.
Held: The tenant’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 21 January 2023; Ref: scu.146606