Griffiths v St Helens Council

A local housing authority may perform the main housing duty by securing suitable temporary accommodation. Under Housing Act 1996 section 193(5), refusal of a suitable assured shorthold tenancy offered by a private landlord may end that duty. The exception is a qualifying offer under section 193(7B), which the applicant is free to reject.

If an applicant accepts non-qualifying temporary accommodation and it later becomes unavailable, the authority must perform the duty again, provided the applicant’s relevant circumstances have not materially changed. Permanence is not an attribute required for accommodation to be suitable.

The appellant was homeless with five children after a housing association obtained possession of her home. Following a successful earlier appeal against a finding of intentional homelessness, St Helens Council accepted that it owed her the main housing duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996.

The Council secured an offer from a private landlord of a suitable assured shorthold tenancy for an initial six-month term. The appellant ultimately refused to move into the property. The Council treated its duty as discharged under section 193(5), and the county court upheld that decision.

The central issue on this second appeal was whether amendments made by the Homelessness Act 2002 removed assured shorthold tenancies from section 193(5), except where they constituted qualifying offers under section 193(7B).

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Section 193(5) of the Housing Act 1996 remained capable of applying to the refusal of any offer of suitable accommodation, including a private landlord’s assured shorthold tenancy. The exception was a qualifying offer within section 193(7B). May LJ gave the judgment, with which Rix LJ and Coleridge J agreed.

2. The duty under section 193(2) does not require an authority to secure permanent accommodation. The authority may perform its Part VII functions by securing suitable temporary accommodation under section 206. It may therefore be necessary to secure a series of temporary homes for the applicant. Permanence is not a necessary attribute of suitability, consistently with R v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte Awua [1996] 1 AC 55 and R v Wandsworth London Borough Council, ex parte Mansoor [1997] QB 953.

3. The amended section 193 distinguishes between refusal provisions and acceptance provisions. Under sections 193(5), 193(6)(d) and 193(7), the duty ceases because an applicant frustrates the authority’s efforts by refusing or abandoning suitable accommodation. Sections 193(6)(c), 193(6)(cc) and 193(7B), by contrast, concern acceptance of accommodation regarded as a settled or permanent solution.

4. The qualifying-offer regime recognises the disadvantages of private assured shorthold tenancies while allowing an applicant to accept one as a potentially permanent solution. Such an offer requires prescribed information and safeguards. The applicant may reject it without affecting the authority’s duty. Its statutory statement is incompatible with the warning about the consequences of refusal required by section 193(5).

5. A non-qualifying assured shorthold tenancy may nevertheless be suitable temporary accommodation. If accepted accommodation later becomes unavailable, the authority must perform the section 193(2) duty again, assuming no material change in the applicant’s circumstances.

6. Authorities using section 193(5) for such an offer should explain that the accommodation may be temporary if the landlord later recovers possession. They should also explain that the authority would then become obliged to perform the duty again, subject to any material change of circumstances.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed unanimously. The court upheld the county court’s conclusion that refusal of the suitable, non-qualifying assured shorthold tenancy brought the section 193(2) duty to an end under section 193(5).

2. St Helens County Court: On 7 April 2005 HH Judge Mackay held that the offered accommodation was suitable and that the Council’s duty had ceased under section 193(5). The present appeal concerned only the latter conclusion.

3. St Helens County Court: On 28 July 2004 HH Judge Mackay allowed an earlier appeal under section 204 and reversed the Council’s decision that the appellant was intentionally homeless.