“O, reason not the need! ” – Hussaini v London Borough of Islington
In Hussaini v London Borough of Islington [2025] EWCA Civ 22, the Court of Appeal has given new clarity to the question of when someone can be considered to have a local connection to a local authority when they do not have a connection by dint of residence in the area, working there, or having family connections there.
Mr Hussaini is a refugee from Afghanistan. On his way to the UK, he met Dr Isayev, who works for the Baobab Centre, an organisation supporting refugees and asylum-seekers. They struck up a close friendship, and when Mr Hussaini first arrived in the UK, he stayed with Dr Isayev for a time before being allocated NASS accommodation. That accommodation was in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. Whilst living there, he continued to attend the Baobab Centre, which is in Islington.
Some two years later, he was granted leave to remain and therefore had to leave his NASS accommodation. He applied to Islington. Whilst they accepted that he was homeless, they did not consider that Mr Hussaini had a local connection to their area, and decided to refer him to Barking and Dagenham, who accepted the referral; that was where his last NASS accommodation had been.
Mr Hussaini, supported by Dr Isayev and the Baobab Centre, sought to argue that his connection with the service there amounted to a local connection because of “special circumstances”. Islington rejected that contention, noting that for most of the time when Mr Hussaini had been attending the Centre, he had been living in Barking and Dagenham and could access the Centre from other London areas.
Mr Hussaini appealed unsuccessfully to the County Court and then to the Court of Appeal, contending that the local authority could not lawfully refuse to accept a local connection on the basis that Mr Hussaini did not “need” to live in Islington to access the Centre.
The Court of Appeal rejected his appeal.
After reviewing several cases where a local connection had not been found to arise, for example in relation to attending a mosque, church or other facility, and noting that the Code of Guidance referred to the “need” to attend special medical or support services, the Court accepted that whether there was a “need” to be in a particular local authority area was a relevant consideration. However, following Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2001] UKHL 57, the question of whether a person needed to be in a specific area to access such services could not be a threshold requirement before the local authority would accept a local connection.
“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.
While, however, the question whether an applicant needs to live in the district can be relevant to whether a “local connection” exists, …a local housing authority is not entitled to impose a threshold requirement to that effect.
The Court then reviewed the decision letter, and rejected the contention that Islington had applied such a “threshold requirement”. Whilst the letter did refer to a “need”, that was permissible, especially where the Appellant’s own submissions had referred to his need – indeed an “absolute need” – to be in the local authority’s area. The Court reiterated that a decision letter responds to the submissions made by the Appellant, and the local authority could not be criticised for using the same words the Appellant had used.
The reviewing officer had lawfully regarded the fact that the Appellant 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”. However, she had not made “need to live in Islington” a necessary feature of “local connection” by reason of “special circumstances”. The Court of Appeal looked at the decision letter against the background of the Appellant’s submissions, in order to determine whether the reviewing officer had erred in law. She had been bound to consider what the Appellant himself said, and her remarks were explained by the fact that she was addressing the points that had been made on Mr Hussaini’s behalf.
The appeal was dismissed.
Comment
This decision clarifies the arguments that can arise when a person claims to have a local connection to an area like Islington where many people would like to live. A local authority is entitled to take into consideration the fact that the person can travel into the area to use the service in question, and the easier it is to get to the area to use the service, the less likely it is that a local connection will arise.
The local housing authority should concentrate on the question of whether there is a connection “in real terms”, not just with a district but with the local housing authority’s district: this is an Act about housing and not about care or support. It is about having a place in the community of that local housing authority’s area. Someone who travels into the area regularly to access a particular service that is not available elsewhere may acquire such a connection, but the fact that they are travelling from outside the area may lead to the contrary conclusion: the local authority retains “a margin of appreciation”.
Faced with such a decision, a local authority should guard against making a need to be in the area the sole test; they should investigate (as Islington had done) all the circumstances in the round and consider whether someone who does not live there, work there or have family there, nonetheless has a real connection to their area because they access a service there.
The Court also gave a welcome reminder that the local authority has to deal with the submissions made by the Appellant. In this case, the Appellant said that he needed to be in Islington, but criticised Islington for using that word in their decision. The Court gave this position short shrift, and rightly so.
Click here for a copy of the Approved Judgement.
Catherine Rowlands has a practice which covers all aspects of public law, especially social housing, community care and welfare, property, and other civil litigation.
