Successive applications for homelessness assistance and new facts

Toby Vanhegan and Stephanie Lovegrove analyse a Court of Appeal ruling on whether a council was justified in declining to accept an application under section 183 of the Housing Act 1996 on the ground that it was based on the same facts as a previous application.

In R(Ivory) v. Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council [2025] EWCA Civ 21 the Court of Appeal held that a local housing authority should reject a homelessness application if it is based on facts which are, to the authority's knowledge, and without further investigation, not new, or are fanciful or trivial. The facts of the new application should be compared with the facts alleged in the previous application as at the date when it was determined.

In August 2016 Ms Ivory was evicted from 21 Holliers Way, Hatfield because of rent arrears and she applied to the defendants for homelessness assistance soon after. By a letter dated 27 January 2023, the defendants completed their homelessness review. They decided that Ms Ivory was homeless intentionally because of the rent arrears and they rejected her explanation that she had suffered a mental breakdown and was unable to manage her affairs at that time. She appealed that decision to the county court but it was dismissed on 3 August 2023. On 4 September 2023 she made a fresh homelessness application relying upon an expert report of Dr Okon Rocha, consultant psychiatrist, who had interviewed Ms Ivory on 14 April for 100 minutes. The report concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, Ms Ivory suffered from severe depressive disorder and panic disorder in late 2015 and 2016, and did not have capacity to keep her tenancy during that time.

The defendants tried to carry out some enquiries into the report, and by a letter dated 25 September 2023, they decided not to accept her new application.   

Ms Ivory judicially reviewed that refusal. Her claim was refused permission by the High Court, and she applied to the Court of Appeal for permission. The Court granted permission and retained the judicial review claim in that Court. 

The Court held that the new application was not based on the same facts as per previous application and therefore quashed the decision to refuse to accept the application. The defendants erroneously took account of the fact that no answers had been given to their enquiries in relation to the report. It was not an abuse not to have tried to rely upon the report in the previous homelessness appeal. The report was not a new fact but contained new facts.

Newey LJ held that a local housing authority should reject an application if the application document purports to reveal new facts which are, to the authority's knowledge, and without further investigation, not new. Fanciful and trivial allegations can be disregarded. He also decided, obiter, that the facts with which those now alleged have to be compared are not all those alleged in respect of the earlier application, but those found or accepted.

Males and Phillips LJ held that the facts of the new application should be compared with the facts alleged in the previous application as at the date it was determined. Apart from that difference, the Court agreed on the other issues.

Toby Vanhegan and Stephanie Lovegrove are barristers at 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square. They appeared for the claimant in the Court of Appeal. Toby appeared for the claimant in the High Court and in her previous homelessness appeals. They were instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors.