Codona v Mid-Bedforshire District Council

Suitability of accommodation under the Housing Act 1996 is a broad, fact-sensitive concept. It includes the accommodation’s nature, location, condition and expected duration. Financial constraints and available housing stock may inform that assessment, but cannot justify accommodation falling below the minimum that a reasonable authority could regard as suitable.

An authority must give genuine special consideration to a homeless gypsy’s established need to maintain a traditional way of life. Article 8 does not require it to provide a caravan pitch. Where no lawful pitch is available, short-term conventional accommodation may be suitable if it meets the minimum standard. Bed-and-breakfast accommodation may cease to be suitable if the stay becomes prolonged.

Mrs Codona, a Romany gypsy caravan dweller, applied as homeless after enforcement action required her extended family to leave an unauthorised caravan site. She sought a lawful pitch for their six or seven caravans and explained her aversion to conventional housing.

The council accepted a duty to secure accommodation under the Housing Act 1996. As no suitable caravan land was available, it offered short-term bed-and-breakfast accommodation and intended, where practicable, to accommodate the family close together. A review under section 202 upheld that offer.

His Honour Judge Farnworth in the Luton County Court upheld the review decision. Mrs Codona appealed, contending that conventional temporary accommodation could not be suitable, that resources were irrelevant, and that the decision failed to respect her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention.

Decision

1. The court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Auld LJ gave the judgment, with Thomas LJ and Holman J agreeing. The council had, on the facts then known, discharged its duty to secure suitable accommodation.

2. Under sections 193 and 206 of the Housing Act 1996, suitability means suitability for the particular applicant and resident family. It extends beyond physical condition to the nature, location and expected duration of the accommodation. The statutory duty is absolute: resource constraints cannot justify an offer below the minimum standard that no reasonable authority could regard as suitable. Nevertheless, suitability is elastic and fact-sensitive; the availability of accommodation and the expected duration of occupation may properly bear on whether an offer reaches that minimum.

3. Article 8, read with Chapman v United Kingdom (2001) 33 EHRR 18, required genuine special consideration of an established gypsy need to maintain a traditional way of life. It did not require the council to guarantee a caravan site or make one available where none could readily be found. The council had to examine the claim, consider practicable means of meeting it, and then assess the resulting offer against the minimum standard of suitability.

4. The council had made careful enquiries and found no lawful land on which the extended family could site its caravans. In the urgent circumstances, its short-term bed-and-breakfast offer was a last resort. Subject to its quality and to the reasonable expectation that the stay would be brief, it was suitable. The County Court had also formed its own Article 8 judgment, as required by South Bucks District Council v Porter [2003] 2 WLR 1547, rather than merely reviewing the council’s decision for rationality.

5. The offer could become unsuitable, and potentially incompatible with Article 8, if bed-and-breakfast accommodation continued for too long before suitable long-term conventional housing or a caravan site became available. There was no present violation of Articles 8 or 14.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2004] EWCA Civ 925. The appeal was dismissed.
• Luton County Court — His Honour Judge Farnworth, on 21 November 2003, upheld the council’s section 202 review decision that temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation was suitable. No citation was stated in the judgment.