The Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 (S.I.

1987 No.

1971) provide the opportunity for a person who is dissatisfied with a determination made under the regulations to seek a review, initially by the authority and subsequently at a hearing by the authority's housing benefit review board: reg 81(3).

The board is under a duty to 'include in the [written] record of every decision a statement of reasons for such decisions': reg 83(4)(b).

A number of recent applications for judicial review consider the scope of this duty.In R v Kingston upon Hull CC HBRB, ex parte Agius (2000) 33 HLR forthcoming, QBD, Gibbs J allowed the application on the grounds that the board's reasons were inadequate.

He held that while the court should exercise caution 'against treating the findings of fact, the decision, and the reasons, in the same way as one would treat a finding in a court of law', a review board was still under an obligation to set out its reasons for reaching the decision.

Significantly, this duty included providing reasons for any adverse findings of fact on the evidence.Almost contemporaneously, Munby J gave judgment in R v Brent LBC HBRB, ex parte Khadim (2000) 33 HLR forthcoming, QBD.

Here the applicant claimed that the board had erred in its interpretation of the law and, in any event, had failed to give adequate reasons.

Munby J.

dismissed the application on the substantive point but quashed the decision because he could not 'glean from the material before [him] adequate reasons for the board's decision, and in particular sufficient to overcome [the applicant's] specific grounds of complaint'.By contrast, the court in R v Derby CC, ex parte Third Wave Housing (2000) 33 HLR forthcoming, QBD, Gibbs J held that the board's reasons had been adequate.

He held that, while a duty to provide reasons exists, there is 'no need for the board to recite every factual consideration before it in stating its reasons'.These cases illustrate the difficult line which a review board has to tread.

It is not expected to record its reasons with the precision of a court but the reasons given must be sufficient to enable the applicant to know how the board arrived at the decision.

In Khadim, the court referred to R v Sefton MBC, HBRB, ex parte Cunningham (1993) 25 HLR 534 where the court held that reasons given by a review board 'should be sufficient to enable the parties to appreciate that the relevant matters have been taken into consideration and to understand why it is that they have succeeded or failed.' Similarly in Agius the court approved the passage in R v HBRB of East Devon DC, ex parte Gibson and Gibson (1993) 25 HLR 387 which specified that 'it is enough if [the reasons] convey the substance of the review board's decision and the reasons for it, however inexpertly these are set out.'Inevitably, each case turns on the quality of the board's statement in the light of the issues which were before it but the cases do re-emphasise that the requirement to provide proper reasons is an essential part of the decision-making process.

In particular, the specific need to resolve is sues of fact may be highlighted.

While the board does not need to go into all the facts of a case, where the resolution of a factual dispute is central to the decision, it must review both sides' evidence, make a finding and then go on to explain why it reached that conclusion.