Baptie v The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames [2022] EWCA Civ 888 (30 June 2022)

Baptie v The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames [2022] EWCA Civ 888 (30 June 2022)

It was lawful for the reviewing officer to rely on the 2019 AHAS guidance as an objective, evidence-based source for assessing reasonable living expenses. The officer was not legally required to use the benefit cap or Universal Credit standard allowances as a benchmark. The County Court Judge erred in law by treating the AHAS guidance as irrelevant and by substituting his own assessment for that of the reviewing officer. The reviewer's multifactorial assessment was not irrational or unlawful.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 888
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Taryn Baptie; Defendant/appellant: The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal (housing/administrative) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Second Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; County Court decision set aside; original reviewer's decision reinstated.
Legal Topics
Intentional Homelessness, Affordability Assessment, Reasonable Living Expenses, Statutory Guidance Interpretation, Judicial Review Principles
Housing Law Administrative Law Public Law Intentional Homelessness Affordability Assessment Reasonable Living Expenses Statutory Guidance Interpretation Judicial Review Principles

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Taryn Baptie

Claimant/respondent

The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (housing/administrative) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Second Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reviewing officer erred in law by treating AHAS guidance as relevant objective guidance for reasonable living expenses
  2. 2 Whether the benefit cap or Universal Credit standard allowances must be used as a benchmark for reasonable living expenses
  3. 3 Whether the reviewing officer's multifactorial assessment was irrational or unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

It was lawful for the reviewing officer to rely on the 2019 AHAS guidance as an objective, evidence-based source for assessing reasonable living expenses. The officer was not legally required to use the benefit cap or Universal Credit standard allowances as a benchmark. The County Court Judge erred in law by treating the AHAS guidance as irrelevant and by substituting his own assessment for that of the reviewing officer. The reviewer's multifactorial assessment was not irrational or unlawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; County Court decision set aside; original reviewer's decision reinstated.

Orders

  • Set aside the order of HHJ Hellman in the County Court.
  • Dismiss the appeal to the County Court and uphold the reviewer's decision that Ms Baptie was intentionally homeless.