HOUSING


Local government - local housing authorities' powers and duties - referrals - residential accommodation - violence - application for accommodation



Kensington & Chelsea Royal London Borough Council v Danesh: CA (Civ Div) (Lords Justice Mummery, Jacob, Neuberger): 5 October 2006



The appellant housing authority appealed against the decision of a county court judge, quashing its decision to refer an application by the respondent (D) for accommodation to another housing authority.



D and his family had arrived in the UK and were housed in Swansea while their asylum claims were being determined. D was granted indefinite leave to remain and became eligible for assistance and housing under part VII of the Housing Act 1996.



Shortly after, D moved his family to London and stayed overnight with a friend. The next day he applied to the appellant housing authority for assistance under the homelessness provisions. The housing authority decided that D had a local connection with Swansea, pursuant to section 184 of the Act by virtue of his previous residence there; that he had no local connection with it; that the conditions for referral were met and that it proposed to refer his case to the Swansea authority.



A review decision by the housing authority upheld its original decision. The review dealt with a claim by D that the conditions for referral were not met because the fact that he had been subjected to violence in Swansea meant that it was inappropriate under section 198 of the Act to refer his accommodation application.



In particular, D alleged that he had been pushed over and injured, had been the victim of a street robbery and had been subjected to various hostile and racist acts. The review determined that the specific incidents that D had been subjected to were not racist acts but were random incidents that could occur anywhere in the UK, that the other acts complained of did not amount to violence within the meaning of section 198 of the Act, and that D was not at risk of violence if returned to Swansea.



D appealed against the review decision pursuant to section 204 of the Act and contended that the authority had misdirected itself as to the meaning of 'violence' in section 198 of the Act and failed to take into account a relevant consideration. D further contended that the authority's view that he and his family would not suffer violence if they returned to Swansea was Wednesbury unreasonable.



The judge allowed D's appeal and quashed the housing authority's decision on the grounds that it had erred as to the meaning of 'violence', as for the purposes of section 198 of the Act it was not confined to actual physical violence, and the review decision as to the risk of violence was unreasonable.



Held, the original decision reached by the authority was correct and was restored.



The word 'violence' referred to in section 198 of the Act meant actual physical violence and not acts or gestures. That was the natural meaning of the word and in the absence of good reason it should be given its natural meaning. Furthermore, section 198(3)(a) of the Act referred to 'violence' and section 198(3)(b) of the Act referred to 'threats of violence'. If 'violence' by itself included the sort of acts that D relied on then section 198(3)(b) of the Act would be redundant. The approach taken by the housing authority to 'violence' in section 198 of the Act was correct.



The reviewer who carried out the review decision had given a full and careful analysis and reached a conclusion that was open to him. The review decision clearly considered D's perceptions of the risk of violence that he and his family faced in Swansea but the reviewer correctly and properly assessed that risk on an objective basis.



(Per curiam) The basic approach that a court conducting a second appeal should undertake was to consider as a primary question whether the original decision was right and not the review decision.



Appeal allowed.



Wayne Beglan for the appellant; Ian Loveland for the respondent.