Court of Appeal

Published October 30, 2009

Ali v Birmingham City Council

Before Lord Justice May, President, Lord Justice Wall and Lord Justice Moore-Bick

Judgment October 14, 2009

The words “inform” and “notify” did not necessarily mean the same thing. In section 193(5) of the Housing Act 1996, “inform” applied to the content of a notice and required more from a local authority than “notify”; it also included “make sure that it was understood”.

Nevertheless, on the facts, the local authority was entitled to assert that its duty to an applicant for housing assistance had been discharged where a letter informing him of the consequences of his refusal of the accommodation offered was written in plain English, although the applicant claimed not to have understood it The Court of Appeal so held dismissing the appeal of the claimant, Abdulahi Ali Mohammed, from the decision of Mr Recorder Tidbury in Birmingham County Court, with permission to appeal given by Lord Justice Jacob on April 7, 2009. The judge dismissed the applicant’s claim that the defendant, Birmingham City Council, had acted in breach of its duty under section 193 of the 1996 Act to provide suitable accommodation.

Mr Zia Nabi for the applicant; Mr Jonathan Manning for Birmingham.

THE PRESIDENT said that the question was whether the appellant Ali had been “informed” for the purposes of section 193(5) of the 1996 Act.

The duty of a local authority under section 193 in Part VII of the 1996 Act, where it was satisfied that a homeless applicant was eligible for assistance and had priority need and it was satisfied that he had not become homeless intentionally, was to secure that accommodation was available for occupation by him.

The local authority was subject to that duty until, under subsection (5), the applicant, having been informed by the authority of the possible consequence of refusal, refused an offer of accommodation which the authority was satisfied was suitable for him and the authority notified him that it regarded itself as having discharged its duty under section 193.

The words “inform” and “notify” were not interchangeable. “Inform” applied to the content of a notice and also included “make sure that it was understandable” and required more from a local authority than “notify”.

The local authority’s letter informing the applicant of the consequence of refusal properly informed him of all that was required. The duty to convey information in understandable English was not to be judged by the varying extent to which it was understood by the recipient.

At no stage had the applicant asked for more help although on a previous occasion he had used the local authority’s translation services. There was nothing which required the recorder to conclude that the local authority had not helped enough, even though it had acknowledged that the applicant could not speak English.

Solicitors: Mr Mike McIlvaney, Birmingham; Mr David Tatlow, Birmingham.

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure