Homelessness s.202 Review vs Judicial Review
A person who disagrees with a local authority's homelessness decision under Housing Act 1996 Part VII has a statutory right to a s.202 review and then a s.204 appeal to the county court. Judicial review (CPR Part 54) is available only where the statutory appeal route is not adequate or has been exhausted. This comparison explains the two routes, when each is available, and how they interact.
Overview
Local housing authorities in England and Wales make decisions under Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996) Part VII on whether applicants are homeless, whether they have a priority need, whether they became homeless intentionally, and what duty is owed. Where an applicant disagrees with a local authority decision, HA 1996 s.202 provides a free statutory right to request a review of the decision within 21 days. The s.202 review is conducted internally by the local authority (by a more senior officer not involved in the original decision) and must be completed within 8 weeks (or such longer period as the parties agree). If the s.202 review upholds the original decision, HA 1996 s.204 provides a right of appeal to the county court on a point of law within 21 days. Judicial review under CPR Part 54 is available where there is no adequate statutory remedy or where the authority has acted unlawfully in a way the s.202/s.204 route cannot address (for example, a challenge to the authority's homelessness strategy or allocation scheme). The courts consistently require applicants to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking judicial review in homelessness cases.
Side-by-Side Comparison
s.202 Statutory Review
Pros
- Free to the applicant — no court issue fee
- Available as of right within 21 days — no permission requirement
- Review officer must consider all the facts and law afresh — not limited to a point of law
- The authority can be requested to accommodate the applicant pending the outcome of the review
Cons
- Conducted internally by the same local authority — limited independence
- Only available for decisions listed in HA 1996 s.202(1) — not all homelessness decisions are reviewable
- 21-day time limit is strict — missing the deadline requires an application for an extension which the authority may refuse
Best For
The first step in challenging any reviewable homelessness decision under HA 1996 Part VII — it is the mandatory prerequisite to a s.204 county court appeal and must be pursued before judicial review is considered.
Judicial Review (CPR Part 54)
Pros
- Can address systemic or policy-level unlawfulness not amenable to s.202 review
- Available where there is no adequate alternative remedy — for example, challenges to the local authority's homelessness strategy
- The court can grant interim relief (suspension of removal from accommodation) pending the full hearing
- Broader grounds of review: illegality, irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness), and procedural impropriety
Cons
- Permission required — a permission filter weeds out cases with no arguable ground
- 3-month time limit from the decision (CPR 54.5(1)) — must apply promptly
- Court will refuse JR where an adequate alternative remedy exists — s.202/s.204 must be pursued first in most individual homelessness cases
Best For
Challenges to the lawfulness of a local authority's homelessness strategy, allocation scheme, or general policy; cases where the s.202/s.204 route has been exhausted; emergency interim relief applications.
Key Differences
Our Recommendation
A s.202 review is the mandatory first step for challenging any individual homelessness decision under HA 1996 Part VII — it is free, available as of right, and allows a full merits reconsideration. Judicial review is reserved for cases where the statutory route has been exhausted or where the challenge targets systemic unlawfulness. Applicants should seek specialist housing law advice immediately on receiving an adverse decision — the 21-day s.202 time limit is strict.