Council Housing Case

Where a person applies to a local housing authority under Part 7, Housing Act 1996 and the authority is satisfied that they are homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and have not become homeless intentionally then (unless the authority refers the application to another housing authority) it must secure that accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant. Such accommodation must be suitable.

Article 9, European Convention of Human Rights, provides that everyone has the right to freedom of religion and to manifest their religion. Article 2 of Protocol No.1 of the ECHR provides that “no person shall be denied the right to education” and the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure teaching in conformity with their own religious convictions.

In the case of Ghaoui v Waltham Forest LBC [2024] EWCA Civ 405 Mr Ghaoui and his family applied for assistance under Part 7. The authority accepted that he was owed the duty to be housed and made him an offer of a property around 20 miles away from where he had previously lived. He sought a review, contending the property was unsuitable because of its location. His children attended a private, fee-paying school which was only open to those of the Islamic faith; the property was too far away from that school and it was his preference that they attend an Islamic school rather than a multi-faith school. The authority decided that the property was suitable; there were plenty of schools within easy distance of the property which was offered and there was no requirement that the authority must secure schooling in accordance with the religious preference of the applicant.

That decision was upheld on appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal. Whilst the review decision had not referred to Art.9 or Art.2, Protocol No.1, it was clear that the officer had recognised the importance which the appellant attached to education being in accordance with his faith. The appellant had no right to require that the family should be accommodated close to any particular school. The review officer had properly recognised his wishes and had taken them into account when assessing whether the property was suitable. The decision that the property was suitable was “plainly open” to the officer.

Oliver Kew

Published on 04/06/2024