Section: Homelessness & Asylum Seekers

Case Law Update

The claimant was a 17 year old girl estranged from her mother and engaged with the criminal justice system. She was granted bail on condition she reside with her father. After only two days, her father said she could no longer stay with him.

Following a period in custody, the claimant faced discharge from detention with no accommodation to go to and applied to the Council.

The Council assessed her but decided she did not meet the conditions for the provision of accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989.

In Judicial Review proceedings, the High Court held that the Council's assessment had been defective. The Judge considered the recently published decision of the High Court on the interface between sections 17 and 20 in R(H) v Wandsworth LBC [2007] EWHC 1082 (Admin).

R(S) v Sutton LBC [2007] All ER (D) 327 (May), 18 May 2007
Ms Steward gave up her home to live as a traveller in a caravan. She failed to get an authorised site and was repeatedly evicted from unauthorised sites.

When she subsequently made an application as homeless, the Council decided she was intentionally homeless.

The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal against that decision. The Council had been entitled to hold that Ms Steward had had no "settled" accommodation since giving up her former home. Further, the courts were not failing to give effect to the need to protect the gypsy way of life in making that decision, as Ms Steward was not a gypsy.

Steward v Kingston Upon Thames RLBC [2007] 22 May
The Council owed the appellant the main homelessness duty in s193 of the Housing Act 1996. It made an offer of accommodation.

The offer was refused and the Council claimed that its duty had been discharged. The appellant claimed that the offer letter did not include the words required by s193(7A), in that it did not state that it was "a final offer for the purposes of subsection (7)".

The Court of Appeal held that the precise rubric need not be used, as long as the offer letter actually conveyed the point that it was a final offer of suitable accommodation.

Further, the offer could be construed as being made under s193(5) and the failure to accept it had brought the duty to an end.

Omar v Birmingham CC, Court of Appeal, 7 June 2007
Following her eviction from her council house, which had been her home for over 25 years, Ms Williams applied as homeless.

The Council accepted it owed her the main housing duty (Housing Act 1996 s193). The Council agreed to make a single offer of suitable accommodation, which it did in another part of its area.
Ms Williams sought a review, on the basis that her seven year old son would have a long and difficult journey on several buses to reach his school.

The reviewing officer decided that a change in a child's school was not an uncommon occurrence when a family moved homes and that a change of school for this child would not disrupt his personal or educational development.

Ms Williams appealed, contending that the reviewer had failed to explore the real difficulties the school journey would pose for her son. That appeal was dismissed in the County Court and by the Court of Appeal. Given the unchallenged finding by the reviewer that this particular child would not suffer on changing schools, there had been no need to make enquiries into his difficulties in reaching his existing school from a new home.

Williams v Birmingham CC [2007] All ER (D) 144 (Jun) 14 June 2007
An appeal was made against a reviewing officer's decision that accommodation allocated to the appellant, under the homelessness provisions of Part 7 Housing Act 1996, was suitable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Judge's dismissal of an appeal. The reviewing officer had sufficiently considered medical evidence that it would be advantageous for the appellant to have the support of family and friends close-by.

The conclusion that she could cope in another area (where the accommodation had been offered) was not wrong in law on the available material.

Abdullah v Westminster CC [2007] All ER (D) 248 (Jun), 21 June 2007
The claimant sought a review of an adverse homelessness decision and asked to be accommodated by the Council pending the outcome of that review.

The decision to refuse that request was taken by the same officer who had made the original adverse decision.

The claimant commenced Judicial Review proceedings, arguing that fairness required that a different officer (the more senior, reviewing officer) should take the decision on accommodation pending review.

The High Court dismissed the claim. Neither the statutory scheme nor any general principle of fairness required that the two decisions should be taken by different officers.

R(Abdi) v Lambeth LBC [2007] All ER (D) 325 (Jun), 25 June
The claimant sought assistance from the Council on the basis that he was a 14 year old unaccompanied asylum seeker.

The claimant obtained a report from a consultant paediatrician concluding that, more likely than not, he was 14. However, the Council obtained two reports from a dental specialist who advised that the claimant was at least 18. Those reports were not immediately provided to the claimant.

The Council decided that he was over 18 and the responsibility of NASS. In Judicial Review proceedings, the decision was quashed. In reaching its decision without disclosing the first dental report the Council had acted unfairly.

R(A) v Liverpool CC [2007] EWHC 1477 (Admin), 26 June
A single mother of Somali origin was made a final offer of a four bedroom house in performance of the Council's main homelessness duty. On her first visit she signified an interest in taking the tenancy.

On her second visit she found that the windows had been broken and rubbish thrown in the garden. She was told by another Somali woman that there were problems with antisocial behaviour and racial harassment. She was chased away from the house by three teenagers who shouted threatening racial abuse.

She refused the offer and the Council decided that it had discharged its duty. That decision was upheld by the reviewing officer and the County Court judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed a further appeal. The reviewing officer had accepted what the applicant had said but had applied correctly an objective test in determining both whether the property was "suitable" and if it would have been reasonable for the applicant to have accepted it.

Ahmed v Leicester CC [2007] All ER (D) 327 (Jun), 27 June
The claimant was a Kosovan refugee. She and her husband had lost contact with three of their daughters in the upheaval in that country but had reached the UK with their adult children. The Council had to decide whether she had a priority need.

On the question of vulnerability, the medical evidence was of depression. A consultant psychiatrist had diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. A GP reported that she was on a high dose of anti-depressants, was mentally unstable, had nightmares and flashbacks, and was self-neglecting.

The Council commissioned medical advice from the organisation Now Medical, which was provided by a doctor who did not examine the claimant or speak with her doctor or specialists. It decided that she was not vulnerable and that decision was upheld by a reviewing officer and on appeal to the County Court.

The Court of Appeal allowed a further appeal. The reviewing officer had wrongly failed to take account of one medical report and been wrong to consider that another added nothing. The Court went on to give extended guidance on the commissioning and use of medical advice by local housing authorities.

Shala v Birmingham CC [2007] EWCA Civ 624, 27 June
The claimants gave up their-long term privately rented home and went to live in their sister's council flat.

When the council repossessed the sister's flat, they applied as homeless. The Council decided that they had become homeless intentionally because they had been unlawful sub-tenants of their sister.

On review, that decision was upheld but on the basis that they had only been licensees, staying only temporarily with their sister.

On appeal, the claimants argued that this shift in reasoning had required the reviewing officer to comply with Regulation 8(2) of the review Regulations and allow them to be heard.

The Court of Appeal ruled that there was no inconsistency in the reasoning. On either view, the Council was deciding that they had not had settled accommodation since giving up their last secure home.

Gilby v Westminster CC [2007] EWCA Civ 604, 27 June
The claimant had been in receipt of Income Support including a disability premium. The premium was stopped when he became homeless and slept rough. Benefit regulations prevented payment of the premium to claimants "without accommodation".

The claimant sought Judicial Review on the grounds that he had been wrongly deprived of a possession, being the premium, contrary to Art 1 Protocol 1 ECHR on grounds that amounted to discrimination (contrary to article 14) between those with and without accommodation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of his claim. Discrimination on the grounds of lack of accommodation was not discrimination by reason of any personal characteristic and was therefore not covered by Article 14.

R(M) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2007] EWCA Civ 614, 28 June 2007
Mr Denton, who was aged 20, lived in the parental home. After warnings about his bad behaviour, his mother excluded him from the home on account of his rudeness and his use of drugs.

On his homelessness application, the Council found that he had become homeless intentionally.

A Judge allowed his appeal but that decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal. The Council had been entitled to find that the cause of his homelessness was his own bad behaviour. His mother had not been unreasonable. It would have been reasonable for Mr Denton to have continued to live at home and comply with his mother's "house rules".

Denton v Southwark LBC [2007] EWCA Civ 623, 4 July 2007

Section: Homelessness & Asylum Seekers

Case Law Update

Legal Update

Reporting on May-July 2007

Quick Links

Welcome to the Legal Update

Archive Issues Reporting Periods