MccAmmon-Mckenzie, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Southwark

A local housing authority’s duty to secure accommodation for a homeless applicant with priority need requires the accommodation to be suitable for the applicant’s household. Temporary accommodation may fall below the standard appropriate for permanent housing, but bed and breakfast or hostel accommodation is unsuitable for a family with children once its use has extended beyond a limited period and no longer represents a genuine last resort. Suitability must be assessed in light of the applicant’s household needs and the Secretary of State’s guidance. Where unsuitable accommodation has continued for an excessive period, and the authority has not shown adequate efforts to secure suitable accommodation, the court may make a mandatory order requiring compliance with the statutory duty.

The claimant was homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. Southwark therefore accepted that it owed her and her son a duty under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. The claimant and her son had remained in, or had been offered, temporary bed and breakfast or hostel accommodation. The accommodation did not provide two bedrooms, and the son had consequently been living in care.

The claim initially sought relief requiring Southwark to seek assistance from another authority and to provide suitable temporary accommodation. The first issue became academic after Southwark sought Croydon’s assistance. The remaining issue was whether the accommodation provided or offered by Southwark was suitable, and what relief should follow.

1. Statutory duty. Southwark’s duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 was to secure accommodation available for occupation by the claimant and her son. Under section 206(1), the accommodation had to be suitable. The authority also had to have regard to the matters identified in sections 182(1) and 210(1).
2. Household requirements. Accommodation with only one bedroom was unsuitable because the son needed his own bedroom. That conclusion applied to both temporary and permanent accommodation.
3. Temporary accommodation. Temporary accommodation may properly be of a lower standard than permanent accommodation. However, the Secretary of State’s Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities stated that bed and breakfast accommodation was for very short-term stays and should be used for families with children only as a last resort and for the minimum period possible. By the date the claim was issued, the continued provision of bed and breakfast or hostel accommodation was no longer suitable. The accommodation offered in Lewisham was therefore also unsuitable.
4. Procedural issue. It was unnecessary to amend the claim. The issue remained the suitability of the accommodation occupied when proceedings began. Later offers were relevant to the relief, but their unsuitability meant that the claimant was not deprived of relief.
5. Relief. A mandatory order was appropriate. Relevant considerations were the length of time spent in unsuitable accommodation, the absence of evidence that Southwark had adequately sought suitable non-bed-and-breakfast accommodation with two bedrooms, and the absence of any foreseeable end to the situation. Southwark was ordered to provide suitable temporary accommodation consisting of a self-contained two-bedroom flat within two months. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs, subject to detailed assessment.