Mitu v London Borough of Camden [2011] EWCA Civ 1249, [2011] All ER (D) 10 (Nov)
It was settled law that reg 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/71), was not a discretionary option that the review officer could apply or disapply according to whether or not he or she considered that the service of a “minded to find” notice would be of material benefit to the applicant. Regulation 8(2) imposed a dual, mandatory obligation upon the review officer.
First, to “consider” whether there had been a deficiency or irregularity in the original decision or in the manner in which it was made. Second, if there was—and if the review officer was nonetheless minded to make a decision adverse to the applicant on one or more issues—to serve a minded to find notice on the applicant explaining his reasons for his provisional views. There was no discretion on the review officer to give himself a dispensation from complying with either of those obligations.
