Housing applicant wins challenge after accepting offer 'under protest'

The London Borough of Brent was perverse to characterise acceptance while seeking review as refusal in a homelessness case.

According to Liz Davies of Garden Court Chambers, this finding arose when HHJ Bailey heard Cieicierska v Brent LBC on 5 September in a county court case.

Ms Davies’ report said that Ms Cieicierska, a single parent of three children, was accommodated by Brent  under s193(2) of the Housing Act 1996.

She was made a final offer of private rented sector accommodation in Telford and told she should travel there the following week to sign for the tenancy and move into the property.

The day before this appointment her solicitor told Brent that Ms Cieicierska was accepting the offer only “under protest”, sought a review of its suitability and was anyway too ill to travel to Telford at that time.

Representations were made that Brent should continue her temporary accommodation until her request for a review had been determined.

But the council said she should travel to Telford and sign the tenancy. When she did not do this due to illness, Brent said it had discharged its duty since Ms Cieicierska had refused a suitable private rented sector offer.

She argued that the accommodation in Telford was not suitable and that she had not refused.

But a council review decided it was suitable and that an acceptance “under protest” and failure to attend the appointment, constituted a refusal.

HHJ Bailey quashed the review decision, saying it was “obviously perverse” for Brent to have decided that she had refused the offer.

He rejected Brent’s submissions that her apparent acceptance had been conditional upon her being permitted to remain in interim accommodation and that a letter had specified that the offer could only be accepted by travelling to Telford and signing the tenancy.

Brent has been contacted for comment.

Mark Smulian