Mohamoud v Birmingham City Council
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK
- MRS JUSTICE PROUDMAN
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The Court of Appeal reviewed a decision involving Birmingham City Council's duty to offer housing to Ms Mohamoud, who refused the accommodation due to confusion about the process. The reviewing officer upheld the original decision without issuing a 'minded to find' notice, which the court found procedurally unfair given new evidence of Ms Mohamoud's misunderstanding. The court quashed the review decision, remanding it back for reconsideration with appropriate procedural safeguards.
Judgment
Mrs Justice Proudman :
This is an appeal from the decision dated 15 April 2013 of His Honour Judge McKenna at Birmingham Civil Justice Centre. Permission to appeal was granted by Underhill LJ on 7 th November 2013. It is a second appeal under s. 204 of the Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”) against a review decision made by Birmingham City Council (“the Council”), the local housing authority for the purposes of the Act, on 15 October 2012.
The Council’s original decision of 19 July 2012, upheld on review and by HHJ McKenna, was that the Council had discharged its duty under s. 193 of the Act to secure that suitable accommodation was available for the appellant, Ms Mohamoud, and that it had therefore ceased to be subject to that duty under Part VII of the Act. Ms Mohamoud was duly notified of the decision in accordance with s. 193 (5) of the Act.
On 30 April 2013 Mr Carter, Counsel for the appellant, replaced his original grounds of appeal of 6 November 2012 with new grounds. There is one simple issue for this Court, namely whether Ms Carter, the relevant Council officer, was entitled, without serving a “minded to find” notice, to find on the review that there was no deficiency in the original decision. Mr Carter relies on Wednesbury unreasonableness: see Associated Provincial Picture Houses Limited v. Wednesbury Corp [1948] 1 KB 223 .
The appeal does not involve a challenge to the decision that the property offered was suitable and reasonable for Ms Mohamoud to accept. The challenge is made on the basis that Ms Mohamoud’s confusion led her to refuse the offer of accommodation in circumstances where, if she had understood the true position, she would have accepted it.
The background
Ms Mohamoud (also called in our papers Mahamoud) is separated from her husband. In April 2012 she was staying with a friend but on discovering that she was pregnant the friend asked her to leave. Accordingly Ms Mohamoud approached the Council for accommodation.
On 18 April 2012 a computer-generated Homeless Application Form (“the homeless form”) was completed. The Council employee sits at the computer and fills in the form in accordance with the instructions of the applicant given at the time. Of particular note is the question under paragraph 1 “ Translator required? ” where the box “No” is checked, (we were told that an interpreter is available by telephone at all times) and the “ Additional Information provided by Interviewer ” under paragraph 26 b. This includes