Asylum seeker loses appeal against being denied ‘local connection’ to London borough
The Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by an asylum seeker over a decision by Islington Council that he had no “local connection” with the area and so his application should be referred to another London borough.
The Court found that Islington, in reaching its review decision, had adequately considered all relevant factors, did not impose an improper "need to live" test, and stayed within the permissible "margin of appreciation" for such decisions.
The appellant told the Court that his family had suffered persecution both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. He arrived in the UK in January 2020 and claimed asylum.
When in a refugee camp in Greece, he met a university lecturer who lives just outside the boundaries of Islington.
Following his arrival in the UK, the appellant was given asylum support accommodation. From September 2021 this was in Barking and Dagenham.
In late 2020 he had been referred to the Baobab Centre for Young Survivors in Exile ("the Baobab Centre"), which is based in Islington. He attended the centre at least three times a week.
After he was granted leave to remain, the appellant was required to leave his asylum support accommodation in February 2022.
Shortly before the deadline, he applied to Islington for assistance. He was provided with temporary accommodation in Haringey.
In March 2022 Islington informed the claimant that while it had decided that he was homeless and eligible for assistance, it had also decided that he had no “local connection” and accordingly his application should be referred to Barking & Dagenham.
The appellant’s solicitors disputed that the conditions for a referral had been met. They argued that he had a "local connection” with Islington for “special reasons”.
The law firm said the claimant had "a real connection … by virtue of his support connection and the depth of the connection and dependency he has on his support network, such that it constitutes a specialist support service that he cannot access in any other borough".
They also cited paragraph 10.11 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities for the proposition that special circumstances might include the need to be near special medical or support services that are only available in a particular district.
It was argued that the Baobab Centre was "central to his wellbeing, development, and settlement into the UK" and provided unique support unavailable elsewhere.
His legal team also highlighted his friendship with the university lecturer who supported his need to live in Highbury Islington or wider Finsbury Park and surrounding neighbourhoods, describing him as "a member of our family."
However, Islington subsequently confirmed its decision. It added that Barking and Dagenham had accepted the referral.
The appellant's lawyers requested a review. Representations were made on his behalf along the same lines as before.
Despite these representations and submissions, including letters from the university lecturer and a Baobab Centre psychotherapist asserting the appellant’s need to reside in Islington for support, and the fact that the claimant was now working for a charity in the area, the review officer at Islington confirmed the decision that the appellant did not have a “local connection”.
Islington stated the appellant's limited work with "We Belong," which he had begun shortly before, his friendship with the university lecturer, and his access to Baobab Centre services did not create a "real terms" local connection “either by way of family, residence or employment”.
The review officer also said she had considered whether the appellant might have a local connection by way of special circumstance, but she was satisfied this was not the case.
In relation to the claimant’s involvement with ‘We Belong’, the review officer said she was satisfied that as he only worked for the Islington-based charity for 3.5 hours per week, “and sometimes not even that”, he did not have a connection to the district in real terms”.
The review officer also said that the university lecturer could not be considered a family member and that, while she accepted that the appellant had frequent contact with her, "this is not dependent on [his] location".
In a review decision dated 15 March 2023, Islington confirmed the decision to refer the case but changed the recipient of the referral to Haringey, where the appellant had a proven local connection through his residence in temporary accommodation.
The County Court rejected the claimant's legal challenge over the review decision. The appellant subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The appeal was based on three grounds:
- Islington misdirected itself by focusing on whether it was necessary for the appellant to reside within its district in order to access the Baobab Centre rather than whether he had a "local connection" with its district because of it;
- The council failed to consider whether his work at "We Belong" and/or his relationship with the university lecturer, taken in conjunction with his involvement with the Baobab Centre, meant that he had a "local connection" with Islington or, alternatively, failed to give reasons for finding that they did not;
- The council's conclusion that the appellant did not have a "local connection" with Islington because of "special circumstances" was unreasonable.
The first of these grounds was the main focus of the appeal, with the third ground of appeal being unlikely to succeed unless the appellant won on the first.
The consideration of ground one was based first on whether the review officer had been entitled to impose a requirement of needing to live within Islington’s district. The second issue was whether the review officer had in fact imposed such a requirement.
Lord Justice Newey said: “Drawing some threads together, a ‘local connection’ exists where a person has a connection in ‘a real sense’ or ‘real terms’ with a local housing authority's district on account of one of the matters mentioned in section 199(1) of the 1996 Act. Those matters (viz. normal residence, employment, family associations and "special circumstances") relate to ‘having a place in the community’.
“When considering whether on the particular facts a ‘local connection’ has arisen as a result of ‘special circumstances’, an authority can properly have regard to whether an applicant has a need to live in its district. The existence of such a need is likely to support a contention that the applicant has a ‘local connection’, and the absence of one may be thought to make a ‘local connection’ less probable. Paragraph 10.11 of the Code explains that ‘special circumstances’ ‘might include the need to be near special medical or support services which are available only in a particular district’. Were an applicant to be unable to access such services without living in the district, it is easy to see how the case for a ‘local connection’ as a result of ‘special circumstances’ could potentially be overwhelming. Where an applicant has to use such services frequently, that might possibly lead to the conclusion that there is a ‘local connection’ even without the applicant needing to live within the district itself, but a 'local connection' may be less likely.”
The Court of Appeal judge added, however, that while the question whether an applicant needs to live in the district can be relevant to whether a ‘local connection’ exists, he agreed with counsel for the claimant that a local housing authority is not entitled to impose a threshold requirement to that effect.
“The legislation nowhere states that such a connection cannot exist, whether as regards ‘special circumstances’ or otherwise, without a need to live in the district, and there is no warrant for inferring such a condition,” he said.
“Nor does paragraph 10.11 of the Code suggest otherwise: it speaks of ‘special circumstances’ including "the need to be near … services which are available only in a particular district’ (emphasis added), implying that it can be enough to be near rather than within the district. In fact, it is easy to conceive of a situation in which ‘special circumstances’ might create a "local connection" without an applicant having to live in the district: say, because a parent was over a prolonged period coming into Camden every day in order to spend it with a very sick child in Great Ormond Street Hospital. Mohamed (CA) and Mohamed (HL) show that it is a misdirection to require an applicant to have "an essential compassionate, social or support need" to live in a district. Likewise, in my view, an authority is not entitled to proceed on the basis that there cannot be "special circumstances" giving rise to a "local connection" unless the applicant has a need to live in the district.”
The Court of Appeal judge added: “In short, it seems to me that [the review officer] was not entitled to impose a requirement of needing to live in Islington.”
However, Lord Justice Newey also concluded that in all the circumstances, he had not been persuaded that the review officer had in practice imposed a requirement of needing to live within the council's district.
“She clearly regarded the fact that he did not need to live in Islington to access the Baobab Centre's services as relevant in deciding whether there was the requisite ‘local connection’. I do not think, however, that she made need to live in Islington a necessary feature of ‘local connection’ by reason of ‘special circumstances’,” the Court of Appeal judge added.
He also concluded that the second ground of appeal failed. “I do not think that the Review Decision is open to challenge on the basis that [the review officer] did not consider whether [the appellant's] work for ‘We Belong’ and/or his relationship with [the university lecturer], if taken together with his involvement with the Baobab Centre, meant that he had a ‘local connection’ through ‘special circumstances’. I also consider that [the review officer] adequately explained her decision.”
Finally, the court rejected the third ground of appeal as it was contingent on the rejected first ground.
Lord Justice Newey said: “It may very well be that the review officer could properly have concluded that the appellant had a "local connection" with Islington. That, however, is not the point. The question is whether [the review officer] arrived at an unreasonable decision, and I do not think she did. A local housing authority has what Schiemann LJ called a .margin of appreciation’, and [the review officer] does not appear to me to have exceeded it.
Lord Justice Nugee and Mr Justice Cobb agreed.
Harry Rodd
