Mohamed v The City of Westminster

For intentional homelessness, the decisive question is whether a continuing causal connection remains between the deliberate act that caused the original homelessness and the homelessness existing when the authority makes its inquiry. That connection may be broken by settled accommodation, but temporary or insecure accommodation will not necessarily do so. The authority must assess causation on all the circumstances. Affordability, overcrowding and the applicant’s purpose in taking the accommodation may be relevant indicators that it was temporary. A reviewing officer need not treat those matters as separate statutory tests. On an appeal under the Housing Act 1996, the court reviews the lawfulness of the authority’s decision. It does not reweigh the evidential significance of relevant factors for itself.

The appellant, a mother living with three children, sought accommodation from Westminster under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. Westminster decided that she remained intentionally homeless because she had left accommodation in Holland in May 2002 in circumstances which made her intentionally homeless. After a review under section 202, Westminster upheld that decision in September 2004.

Between May 2003 and May 2004 the appellant occupied a one-bedroom flat in Paddington under an assured shorthold tenancy. Housing benefit did not meet the full rent, arrears accrued and the landlord obtained and enforced a possession order. Westminster concluded that this accommodation had not broken the causal link with the original intentional homelessness, taking account of its unaffordability, overcrowding and the appellant’s intention to reapply for public accommodation after about a year. The Central London County Court dismissed an appeal under section 204. The issue on second appeal was whether the review decision was defective in law.

1. Appeal dismissed. The reviewing officer had asked himself the correct overarching question under section 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996: whether the causal link between the appellant’s original intentional homelessness and her later homelessness had been broken.
2. The principles stated in Din v Wandsworth LBC [1983] AC 657, and applied in the subsequent authorities, require a continuing causal connection between the deliberate act causing homelessness and the homelessness existing at the date of inquiry. Settled accommodation may break that connection; temporary accommodation may not. The possibility that other factors may break the chain, identified in R v Harrow LBC ex parte Fahia (1997) 29 HLR 974, did not arise on these facts.
3. The reference in section 191(1) to accommodation which it would have been reasonable to continue to occupy concerns the accommodation originally left, not later accommodation. Section 175(3), however, was relevant to understanding the reviewing officer’s reasoning. His references to the later accommodation being unreasonable were properly read as part of his assessment whether it was settled and whether causation had been broken, rather than as an independent statutory test.
4. Affordability, overcrowding and the applicant’s purpose in taking the accommodation were relevant matters. The officer was entitled to regard their combination as showing that the flat was insecure and temporary. Overcrowding could be a strong indicator that accommodation was not settled, although it was not itself determinative. The officer was entitled to refer to statutory overcrowding criteria without thereby making those criteria the governing legal test.
5. Under section 190, satisfaction that the applicant remained intentionally homeless was for the authority. The court’s role was to monitor legality, not to assess the comparative weight of the relevant features. The review decision was therefore lawful. The respondent was awarded its costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2005] EWCA Civ 796: dismissed the second appeal from the Central London County Court and awarded the respondent its costs.
• Central London County Court: His Honour Judge Wakefield dismissed the appellant’s appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 on 15 February 2005.
• Westminster review decision: dated 24 September 2004, upheld the earlier decision that the appellant remained intentionally homeless.