Section: Homelessness & Asylum Seekers

Case Law Update

A 13-year-old girl, whose mother lived overseas, told her school teacher her father - with whom she was living - had been violent to her, and an urgent case conference was called by the Council. The child's father agreed to have no further contact with her.

The child had previously stayed with D. A social worker telephoned D, who agreed to take the child in. The Council claimed it had never owed the child an accommodation duty under the Children Act 1989 because she had not required accommodation - by virtue of the fact D had agreed to take her.

The Court of Appeal held that the Council had owed a crystallised duty to accommodate the child (under section 20(1)(c)) and that she had become a 'looked-after child' as soon as that duty arose.

The Council had been under a duty to provide accommodation for the child, and the arrangement it made with D had been in pursuance of that duty.

Southwark LBC v D [2007] EWCA Civ 182, 7 March 2007
The claimant, who was a homeowner, applied for homelessness assistance on the basis his home was so overcrowded it was no longer reasonable to occupy. The Council decided the premises was statutorily overcrowded, but the excess was only one person.

On review, the Council upheld a decision that the claimant was not homeless because it was reasonable to continue in occupation.

The Court of Appeal quashed that decision and concluded the "space standard" for statutory overcrowding had not been considered by the Council. The "space standard" indicated the excess was two and a half people. That was a relevant matter and the decision would need to be reconsidered.

Elifry v Westminster CC [2007] All ER (D) 405 (Mar), 23 March 2007
The claimants were failed asylum seekers. They were destitute and were likely to suffer infringement of their convention rights if they were not provided with accommodation and other assistance by the state.

At Judicial Review of their claim, the key issue to consider was whether the provision of the necessary assistance fell to:
- a local authority (under section 21 National Assistance Act 1948), or
- the Home Office (under section 4 of the Immigration & Asylum Act 1999).
The High Court held that the claimants' support needs were a local authority matter. An appeal by the Council was dismissed.

Croydon LBC and Hackney LBC v AW, A and Y [2007] EWCA Civ 266, 4 April 2007
Ms Rowley and her partner gave up their privately rented flat, and applied to the Council as homeless. They told the Council their landlord had informed them he was selling the property they vacated with vacant possession.

After enquiries with the landlord, the homelessness officer invited the couple to sign and return a tear-off slip on a letter setting out that they had given up their tenancy, given the landlord one month's notice, and were moving to be nearer their family.

Following the return of the slip to the Council, a decision was issued that they had become homeless intentionally. That decision was upheld on review and an appeal against it was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed a further appeal on the following grounds:
- The couple had unequivocally agreed the facts put to them in the letter.
- The initial decision contained no flaw or "deficiency" triggering regulation 8(2) of the review regulations - even though that term was to be construed broadly.
Rowley v Rugby BC [2007] All ER(D) 215 (Apr), 25 April 2007
Having separated from her husband, the claimant left the matrimonial home, which was a private rented flat. She made two applications for accommodation to Enfield LBC, which resulted respectively in findings that she was not homeless, and later, when the tenancy had been surrendered, that she had become homeless intentionally.

The claimant later applied to Haringey Council for housing, but failed to disclose the former matrimonial home, her applications to Enfield, or the accommodation that council had temporarily secured for her.

Haringey Council obtained the claimant's former file from Enfield Council. The claimant then alleged she had been in fear of her husband, and that another woman had impersonated her in giving-up the keys. Haringey Council decided that this account was inconsistent with the account given to Enfield Council, and that it lacked credibility. The Council decided that the claimant had become homeless intentionally.

The County Court judge allowed an appeal, and the Court of Appeal upheld the Council's decision. The reviewing officer at Haringey Council had given the application a full and fair assessment and had not simply "rubber-stamped" the Enfield Council decision.

Eren v Haringey LBC [2007] All ER (D) 191 (Apr), 24 April 2007

Section: Homelessness & Asylum Seekers

Case Law Update

Housing Monthly Diary

Issue: May 2007 Reporting on March-April 2007

Quick Links

Welcome to the Legal Update

Archive Issues Reporting Periods