Knight v Vale Royal Borough Council

Occupation under a six-month assured shorthold tenancy is capable of breaking the causal link with earlier intentional homelessness. Such a tenancy does not constitute settled accommodation as a matter of law in every case.

Whether accommodation amounts to a settled residence remains a question of fact and degree for the local housing authority. The existence of an assured shorthold tenancy will normally be a significant indication that the accommodation is settled. Tenure equivalent to that prevailing in the private rented sector is also likely to be settled rather than temporary. The authority’s assessment is reviewable on ordinary public law principles.

The Council decided under section 191 of the Housing Act 1996 that the appellant had become intentionally homeless. She did not seek a review of that decision. She subsequently obtained a six-month assured shorthold tenancy, knowing that the landlord intended to recover the property when the term expired.

The Council decided that this accommodation was temporary and had not broken the causal link with the earlier intentional homelessness. Its decision was upheld on review and by the Warrington County Court.

The appellant contended that an assured shorthold tenancy always constituted settled accommodation. Alternatively, she relied on fresh evidence describing her tenancy as a six-month renegotiable contract. The central issue was whether she had achieved a settled residence sufficient to displace her intentional homelessness.

1. Appeal dismissed. The occupation of accommodation under a six-month assured shorthold tenancy was capable of constituting settled accommodation and breaking the chain of causation from earlier intentional homelessness. Six months was the statutory minimum period, but that did not justify an assumption that occupation for that period was temporary rather than settled.

2. The court accepted that tenure equivalent to the tenure prevailing in the private rented sector was likely to be settled rather than temporary. The existence of an assured shorthold tenancy would normally be a significant pointer towards accommodation being settled.

3. However, an assured shorthold tenancy did not constitute settled accommodation as a matter of law in every case. The concept of settled residence had no statutory origin. It had been developed by the courts to determine whether the causal chain from earlier intentional homelessness had been broken. Whether a residence was settled remained a question of fact and degree for the local authority in the circumstances of the individual case. Its decision was subject to review on Wednesbury principles.

4. The authorities concerning longer assured shorthold tenancies did not establish an automatic rule. R v Rochester-upon-Medway City Council, ex p Williams concerned a twelve-month tenancy. The observations in R v London Borough of Wandsworth, ex p Crooks concerning tenancies of 12 or 18 months were tentative and obiter.

5. The fresh letter describing the tenancy as a six-month renegotiable contract created no real possibility of a different decision. It could not reasonably override the other evidence establishing the parties’ mutual understanding that the tenancy would end after six months without renewal. The Council was therefore entitled to regard the accommodation as temporary, and no reconsideration was required.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed. The Council’s conclusion that the appellant had not obtained settled accommodation was upheld: [2003] EWCA Civ 1258.

2. Warrington County Court: His Honour Judge Hughes dismissed the appellant’s section 204 appeal on 20 January 2003 and refused permission to appeal. No citation is stated.

3. Vale Royal Borough Council: On review, the Council confirmed its decision that the six-month tenancy was temporary and had not displaced the earlier finding of intentional homelessness.