Kensington & Chelsea wins battle with Ealing over homelessness local connection referral case

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea has won a High Court battle with the London Borough of Ealing over a local connection referral case.

Her Honour Judge Karen Walden-Smith said the case of Royal Borough of Kensington And Chelsea, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough Of Ealing [2017] EWHC 24 (Admin) raised “an important point of principle with respect to determining upon which housing authority the housing duty falls where there has been a cessation of housing duty by one authority and a new application made to another housing authority”.

The background to the case was that Sara Hacene-Blidi, a disabled wheelchair user with four dependent children, had lived in Ealing from 2008.

In March 2015 she applied to Ealing for housing assistance under the Housing Act 1996, her landlord having commenced possession proceedings.

Ealing accepted a main housing duty towards Ms Hacene-Blidi. An offer of accommodation was made, which Ms Hacene-Blidi refused. Ealing notified her that it regarded its housing duty as having ceased. She requested a review but then withdrew that request.

Ms Hacene-Blidi was evicted on 1 December 2015, with her landlord looking to refurbish the property in a bid to charge a higher rent.

She subsequently applied to Kensington & Chelsea. The latter notified her and Ealing that the main housing duty was owed and that the conditions for a local connection referral to Ealing were met.

Ealing wrote back in January 2016 to acknowledge that the conditions for a local authority connection referral were met but that it did not owe any duty to Ms Hacene-Blidi in light of her refusal of a suitable offer of accommodation.

Kensington & Chelsea argued that by reason of the acceptance of the conditions of referral being met, Ealing's main housing duty was engaged, and that this was a second duty. It challenged by judicial review Ealing’s decision that no new housing duty arose. Kensington & Chelsea had been supporting Ms Hacene-Blidi since Ealing’s refusal.

HHJ Walden-Smith concluded that the main housing obligation pursuant to the provisions of the HA 1996 fell upon Ealing.

The judge said Kensington & Chelsea had fulfilled its statutory obligations upon receipt of the application for housing assistance from Ms Hacene-Blidi and found that there was a main housing obligation pursuant to the provisions of section193(1).

“That main housing obligation fell upon Ealing upon Ealing accepting the local connection referral on 20 January 2016,” HHJ Walden-Smith said.

“The cessation of the first duty that occurred when Ms Hacene-Blidi refused the offer of accommodation made by Ealing in response to her first application for housing assistance, pursuant to the provisions of Part VII, does not prevent the second housing duty arising upon her making a fresh application pursuant to the provisions of section 193(9) HA 1996. The fact that application was made to another housing authority does not place Ealing in any better or worse position.”

Matt Hutchings of Cornerstone Barristers appeared for Kensington & Chelsea.