Al-Ameri v Kensington & Chelsea

For local connection under Housing Act 1996 s199(1)(a), normal residence and residence of the applicant’s own choice are separate requirements. Accommodation allocated under the NASS dispersal scheme is never residence of the applicant’s own choice because the provider must disregard locality preferences and directs the placement. A pressured acceptance, including a Hobson’s choice, does not satisfy the statutory condition. The absence of an order under s199(5) does not alter that conclusion. Community ties developed during dispersal may nevertheless be relevant under the special-circumstances ground.

These conjoined appeals concerned two former asylum seekers who had been accommodated in Glasgow under the NASS dispersal scheme. After acquiring immigration status that made them eligible for homelessness assistance, each applied to a London authority. The authorities accepted that the statutory conditions for accommodation were met but referred the cases to Glasgow City Council, relying on a local connection based on residence in Glasgow.

The Central London County Court and Willesden County Court upheld the referrals. The central question before the Court of Appeal was whether accommodation occupied under the NASS dispersal scheme could give rise to a local connection under s199(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1996.

1. The appeals were allowed by a majority. Simon Brown LJ gave the leading judgment and Carnwath LJ agreed. Buxton LJ dissented.
2. Section 199(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1996 requires both normal residence and residence of the applicant’s own choice. Mohamed v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [2002] 1 AC 547 established that interim accommodation may constitute normal residence, but the separate question whether residence was of the applicant’s own choice had not arisen in that case.
3. The NASS scheme was materially different. Under s97(2)(a) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Secretary of State could not consider the applicant’s preference as to locality. Accommodation was allocated on a no-choice basis and refusal exposed a destitute applicant to loss of accommodation and support, and potentially detention. Acceptance in those circumstances was not the applicant’s own choice.
4. Sections 199(3) and 199(5) did not make the statutory exclusions exhaustive. The absence of an order specifying NASS accommodation did not make such residence voluntary. The two Acts had to be read consistently, and NASS residence could not establish a local connection under s199(1)(a). The applicant could apply to an authority of choice after leaving the NASS scheme.
5. The court added that community ties developed during NASS residence could, where relevant, support a local connection based on special circumstances under s199(1)(d), although residence itself could not do so.
6. Buxton LJ would have dismissed the appeals. He considered that ordinary language treated an unwelcome or Hobson’s choice as a choice, and that s199(3) indicated that further exclusions required express provision.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) allowed both appeals by majority and rejected the referrals to Glasgow based on residence under s199(1)(a).
2. Central London County Court and Willesden County Court upheld the respective local authorities’ decisions that the appellants had a local connection with Glasgow through residence in NASS accommodation.