Case No. EWHC-185-(Admin)

(and his or her household)pending the completion of the authority’s inquiries and their decision as to what duty, if any, is owed to the applicant under Part VII of the Act. Chapter 7 provides guidance on the interim duty to accommodate. Authorities are reminded that ‘having reason to believe’ is a lower test than ‘being satisfied’.…6.6 Applications can be made by any adult to any department of the localauthority expressed in any particular form; they need not be expressed asexplicitly seeking assistance under Part VII ……7.3 The threshold for the duty [to provide interim accommodation] is low asthe local authority only has to have a reason to believe that the applicant maybe homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need. (See paragraph6.5 for guidance on the ‘reason to believe’ test.)”In relation to the threshold:“39Turning to the second threshold condition, paras 6.5 and 7.3 of the Codespecifically emphasise that the local authority only has to have a reason to believethat the applicant may be homeless to trigger the duty to inquire (under s.184), and reason to believe that the applicant may be homeless and in priority need to trigger the duty to provide interim accommodation pending those inquiries (under s.188). That threshold is low and, indeed, clearly low by design, in view of the vulnerable individuals it is intended to protect (see R. (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2008] UKHL 14 at [36] per Baroness Hale). It is a hurdle patently lower than the authority “being satisfied” as to the fact of those matters (which is the s.193 threshold in respect of the applicant in fact being homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homelessness, which triggers a final, full duty to accommodate).”In relation to delaying interim accommodation Hickinbottom J ruled thus: 40That low threshold has to be considered in the context of another propositionthat derives from both the Code (especially paras 6.5 and 6.16: quoted at paras33–34 above) and the authorities, that, once an effective application has been made and the authority has reason to believe that the applicant is or may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, s.183 is engaged and the provisions that follow (including the duties to inquire and, if the authority has reason to believe the applicant is or may be in priority need, to provide interim accommodation) become immediately effective (see, e.g. Rikha Begum at [49] per Neuberger LJ). An authority is not entitled to defer or delay these duties, to allow time (e.g.) to persuade the individual to mediate (Robinson v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2006] EWCA Civ 1122 at [42] per Jonathan Parker LJ, and at [45] per Jacob LJ),