Section: Homelessness & Asylum Seekers

Failure to Comply with the Disability Discrimination Act

The London Borough of Redbridge failed to take sufficient account of a man's hearing disability when dealing with his homelessness application, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Tony Redmond.

In his report, he says:

"The faults I have identified in this matter demonstrate a failure by the Council to comply with the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 - to make 'reasonable adjustments' to enable disabled people to access services."

The man had to live in temporary accommodation for two years longer than necessary as a result of the Council's failures.

Mr B complained about the way the Council dealt with his needs as a disabled person when handling his homelessness application between July 2006 and October 2007, despite its response to an earlier complaint he made about the same issue in October 2006.

The Ombudsman's report finds that the Council was at fault for:

The Council has already paid Mr B £750 for failing to provide an interpreter and a textphone facility. Its staff at the Housing Advice Centre have now attended Deaf Awareness Training and a textphone facility has been provided, which the Ombudsman welcomes.

The Council says that it has also reviewed its arrangements for communication with service users and implemented the necessary changes to ensure it complies with the latest Disability Discrimination Act requirements.

In addition, the Ombudsman also considers that the Council should:

Local Government Ombudsman Report 07A03275

Criticism for Treatment of Homeless Couple

The Local Government Ombudsman concluded that Hounslow Council unreasonably delayed offering a homeless couple temporary accommodation. In his report, he finds that, although they were evicted from their rented flat in July, the Council did not refer them to its temporary accommodation team until September, and says:

"I consider the Council to be at fault for failing to make the referral on the day of eviction."

Ms A and Mr M complained that, after they were evicted from their rented flat, the Council delayed unreasonably in offering them temporary accommodation once it accepted it had a homelessness duty towards them, and that it failed to assess their homelessness application in accordance with its published allocations policy.

The Ombudsman found fault in the way the Council dealt with the couple's homelessness application. He was particularly concerned that, despite his having issued a report in 2007 criticising the Council for not assessing housing applications in line with its allocations policy, the Council continues not to do so.

The Ombudsman does not, however, consider the injustice caused to Ms A and Mr M as a result of the Council's delay in offering temporary accommodation to be great, as they refused an offer when it was made, and did not then pursue their statutory appeal rights regarding its suitability.

Similarly, he does not consider the injustice caused by the Council's failure to assess their housing register application in line with its allocations policy - and specifically to apply one particular criterion - to be great, as the criterion was not applied to any housing applicant.

Nevertheless, Ms A and Mr M were undoubtedly caused distress and confusion by the Council's lack of clarity, and Ms A’s grandmother took time and trouble in pursuing the complaint on their behalf.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice and recommends the Council to:

Local Government Ombudsman Report 07/A/14216

Case Law Update

Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond LBC [2009] UKHL 7

The claimant and his partner separated and he left the family home that they had occupied with their children. In the Family Court he was granted an Order that the children spend half their time with him.

On his homelessness application, the Council decided that he did not have priority need because the children were not "reasonably expected" to reside with him.

His appeal against that decision was initially dismissed but then allowed by the Court of Appeal.

The House of Lords restored the Council's decision, ruling that "It was a matter for the Council and not for the Family Court to decide whether a homeless person's children might reasonably be expected to reside with him."

___________

AB v Leicester City Council [2009] EWCA Civ

The claimant applied for homelessness assistance. She declined to provide any information about her nationality or immigration status or allow the Authority to contact third parties about her status.

The Authority refused her application. She appealed, contending that unless an authority could be positively satisfied that an applicant was not eligible it had to proceed on the basis that she was eligible and then provide her with assistance.

The Court of Appeal took the unusual step of adjourning the appeal so that the claimant's representatives could explore the possibility of appointing a litigation friend for the claimant, as her litigation was potentially being conducted in a manner contrary to her best interests.

___________

Ugiagbe v Southwark LBC [2009] EWCA Civ 31

The claimant was an assured shorthold tenant with a fixed term (one year) tenancy. When that expired, the landlord told her to leave and she later did so.

She then applied for homelessness assistance. The Council decided that she had become homeless intentionally even though it accepted that she had been in ignorance of the landlord's need to obtain a Possession Order. It found that she had had advice that she should go to the council's HPU for assistance before leaving which she had not done. Had she taken that step, she would have been advised not to leave without a Court Order.

The decision was upheld on review and in the County Court.

The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal. The claimant had been in ignorance and had acted in "good faith". She had not ignored the advice given but simply decided not to approach the HPU because she had not, at the time, wished to be treated as homeless.

___________

R(Mendes) v Southwark LBC [2009] EWCA Civ, [2009] All ER (D) 231 (Mar)

The claimant had applied to Southwark as homeless. The Council provided him with interim accommodation but later decided that he was not 'eligible' because, although he was an EU national, he was not a "worker".

The claimant sought a review and, because the interim accommodation was to be withdrawn, also sought judicial review.

The Council conceded that its decision on his status had been wrong and the judicial review claim was compromised. The judge made no order for costs.

The Court of Appeal allowed the claimant's appeal on costs. The council had had no answer to the claim for judicial review and should have been ordered to pay the costs.

___________

R(Best) v Oxford CC [2009] EWHC 608 (Admin), [2009] All ER (D) 252 (Mar)

The Council owed the claimant the full housing duty under Housing Act 1996 section 193.

When the accommodation that had been provided pursuant to that duty was lost for non-payment of rent, the Council decided that its duty had been ended because the claimant had become homeless intentionally.

That decision led to a number of challenges, including these proceedings for judicial review.

The High Court dismissed the claim. It held that the Council had been entitled to decide that the duty was no longer owed.

___________

Alexander-David v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2009] EWCA Civ 259

Ms A-D applied to the Council for homelessness assistance when she was 16 and pregnant. The Council provided her with temporary accommodation in a non-secure tenancy on its standard terms and conditions.

When the Council later received complaints from other residents about her conduct, it served Notice to Quit, brought a possession claim and obtained a Possession Order.

The Court of Appeal allowed Ms A-D's appeal. Because she was not 18 when the tenancy was granted, the effect of the grant was to cast the Council in the role of trustee of the tenancy until she reached 18. It could not give a valid Notice to Quit because to do so would be in breach of that trust. Therefore, it could not determine the tenancy or seek possession.

A council that wished to avoid such a result - but wanted to accommodate a teenager - might do so by providing them with non-exclusive possession (because exclusive possession is the necessary hallmark of a tenancy).

New Regulations

Source: Office of Public Sector Information

The Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 SI 358

These Regulations amend the provisions of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) Regulations 2006, which determine which persons from abroad, other than persons subject to immigration control, are ineligible for an allocation of housing accommodation under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 or for housing assistance under Part 7 of that Act.

The Eligibility Regulations provide that a person who is not subject to immigration control is ineligible for an allocation of housing accommodation or for housing assistance if they are not habitually resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland, unless specifically exempted from that requirement.

Regulation 2 amends the Eligibility Regulations to create such an exemption. The effect of the provision is that a person not subject to immigration control who is not habitually resident, and who left Zimbabwe and arrived in Great Britain on or after 28th February 2009 having accepted an offer from Her Majesty's Government of assistance for settlement in the United Kingdom, will be eligible for an allocation of housing accommodation or for housing assistance. However, the exemption only has effect until the 17th March 2011.

See also - The Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (Wales) Regulations 2009 SI 393 (W.42)

___________

The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (Commencement No. 1 and Saving Provisions) Order 2009 SI 415 (C.28)

This Order brought into force section 314 of, and Schedule 15 to, the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.

The provisions commenced make changes to housing legislation in the United Kingdom in response to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Morris v. Westminster City Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1184, which declared that the provisions of section 185(4) of the Housing Act 1996(c.52) were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Article 2 commences the provisions in relation to England and Wales and provides that the amended provisions will apply only to applications for an allocation of social housing or housing assistance (homelessness) made on or after 2nd March 2009.

Article 3 commences the provisions in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland and provides that the amended provisions will apply only to applications for accommodation made on or after 2nd March 2009.

Article 4 commences the amendments and repeals made consequential on the amendments in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 15 to the Act.

Legal Update


Enter your email address to receive our e-bulletins advising on updates to the many sections of our website.

We will not share your email address with others or use it for any other purpose.

Reporting on Feb-Apr 2009

Quick Links

Login here for current editions

username: password:

New subscribers and free review

Archive Issues Reporting Periods