Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC [2003] UKHL 5; [2003] 2 AC 430

Tower Hamlets accepted a housing duty towards Runa Begum and offered her accommodation. She refused the offer because of concerns about the property and locality. On statutory review, a council officer upheld the suitability assessment and the conclusion that the authority's duty had ended. Begum could appeal to the county court on a point of law, but that court did not conduct an unrestricted factual rehearing. She argued that a council employee was not independent and that the available appeal could not provide the determination required by Article 6.

Assuming Article 6 applied, whether a council officer’s housing review followed by a county-court appeal on a point of law provided sufficiently independent judicial supervision.

The House of Lords dismissed the appeal. It proceeded on the assumption that Article 6 applied, without finally determining that question. The council officer was not an independent tribunal, but the overall scheme provided sufficient safeguards and judicial supervision for this housing assessment. The county court could address legal error, unfairness, irrationality and material defects in fact-finding even though it could not freely rehear the facts. The evaluative nature of the authority's housing function and the protections built into statutory review were important. The judgment therefore did not require every such decision to begin with an independent adjudicator or end with a full merits appeal, but neither did it approve deficient administrative processes generally.

Assuming Article 6 applied, the safeguarded housing review and county-court appeal in Runa Begum supplied sufficient judicial supervision without a full factual rehearing. Adequacy depended on the decision’s evaluative nature and the available procedural protections.

Runa Begum shows that the adequacy of judicial supervision under Article 6 depends on the nature of the administrative decision. The House considered the statutory review safeguards and the evaluative housing function, rather than requiring a complete factual rehearing in every case. Article 6 applicability was assumed for this analysis rather than finally decided. Compare Tsfayo, where an institutionally compromised board determined a central credibility issue that later review could not rehear. Later housing authorities also require attention before stating the contemporary Article 6 position.