Reason not the need? Special circumstances considered
In Hussaini v London Borough of Islington [2025] EWCA Civ 22, the Court of Appeal considered the somewhat inchoate question of the circumstances that can give rise to a local connection to a local authority. If the applicant does not reside in the borough they want to live in, work there, or have family connections there, they have to fall back on “special circumstances”. The Court of Appeal explained that it cannot be a “threshold test” that a person needs to live in the Borough to access a specialist facility, which happens to be in the Borough of choice, but it is relevant to the decision that the person can access that facility whilst living outside the Borough.
Mr Hussaini is a refugee from Afghanistan. On his way to the UK, he met a 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. The NASS accommodation was in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, thus giving him a local connection to that borough. 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. Like many people, he wanted to live in Islington, and so applied as homeless to Islington. Islington 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.
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”. Indeed, they have since argued that several other people who attend the Centre have a local connection to Islington. Islington rejected that contention, noting that Mr Hussaini had been living elsewhere for most of the period he had attended the Centre, and he could easily 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 that a local housing authority could take into account. However, it could not be a threshold requirement.
The Court of Appeal held:
- a “local connection” exists where a person has a connection in “a real sense” or “real terms” with a local housing authority’s district
- the factors in section 199 relate to “having a place in the community”.
- 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
The Court then reviewed the decision letter, and rejected the contention that Islington had, in fact, 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 “absolute need” to be in Islington. 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.
Catherine Rowlands acted for the successful Respondent in this case.
