Shamso Abdikadir v London Borough of Ealing

Shamso Abdikadir v London Borough of Ealing

Ealing failed to demonstrate compliance with its own policy regarding the search for in-borough private sector accommodation as required by section 208(1) Housing Act 1996. The failure to notify the receiving authority under section 208(2) did not invalidate the review decision, but the lack of evidence that Ealing followed its procurement policy meant the decision to end the housing duty was unlawful.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Shamso Abdikadir; Defendant/respondent: London Borough of Ealing
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal (second Appeal From County Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Homelessness, Local Authority Duties, Judicial Review Principles, Statutory Interpretation
Housing Law Administrative Law Homelessness Local Authority Duties Judicial Review Principles Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shamso Abdikadir

Claimant/appellant

London Borough of Ealing

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal (second Appeal From County Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to notify the receiving authority under section 208(2) Housing Act 1996 invalidates the review decision ending the housing duty
  2. 2 Whether the local authority complied with its statutory duty to secure accommodation within its own district 'so far as reasonably practicable' under section 208(1) Housing Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

Ealing failed to demonstrate compliance with its own policy regarding the search for in-borough private sector accommodation as required by section 208(1) Housing Act 1996. The failure to notify the receiving authority under section 208(2) did not invalidate the review decision, but the lack of evidence that Ealing followed its procurement policy meant the decision to end the housing duty was unlawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.