Steward v Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames

For intentional homelessness, an earlier deliberate departure from reasonable accommodation remains causally effective unless a sufficiently settled later residence intervenes. Whether later accommodation is settled is a question of fact and degree. Unauthorised and precarious occupation as a trespasser, without a right or interest and subject to eviction, is far removed from settled accommodation.

Human-rights jurisprudence concerning gypsies and travellers does not alter the factual inquiry into permission or settled accommodation. It does not impose a general duty to provide sites or a home. Article 14 also requires a properly formulated case of discriminatory treatment.

This was a second appeal by Ms Steward from a decision of HHJ Morgan in Kingston-upon-Thames County Court entered on 29 September 2006. The county court proceedings concerned an appeal under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 against the respondent authority’s review decision of 13 July 2006.

The authority had found that Ms Steward became intentionally homeless in 2000 by leaving accommodation that it was reasonable for her to continue to occupy, and that the condition continued. She had since lived in a caravan or converted bus on various sites, generally without the owners’ permission. The issues were whether those occupations were settled or involved deemed permission so as to break causation, and whether her traveller status and human-rights arguments affected that assessment.

Buxton LJ gave the lead judgment. Moore-Bick and Lawrence Collins LJJ agreed. The appeal was dismissed.

1. Scope of the appeal. The proposed issue whether an event other than obtaining settled accommodation could break the causal chain did not arise. The authority and the county court had accepted that other events could, in principle, have that effect.
2. Settled accommodation. Whether a later occupation amounts to settled accommodation or residence is a question of fact and degree. The authority was entitled to find that the successive occupations were unauthorised and precarious, with no right or interest in the land and subject to eviction at any time. They were therefore far removed from settled accommodation and did not break the causal connection with the original intentional homelessness.
3. Deemed permission. The general dictum in R (O’Donohue) v Brighton and Hove District Council [2003] EWHC 129 (Admin) did not assist on these facts. Continued inaction by a landowner might in principle amount to permission under section 175(2)(b) of the Housing Act 1996, but the question was one of judgment in the circumstances. The authority had accepted that possibility and made a lawful factual finding against it.
4. Human rights. The principles in Chapman v UK [2201] 33 EHRR 18, R (Price) v Camarthenshire County Council [2003] EWHC 42 and Codona v Mid-Bedfordshire District Council [2004] EWCA Civ 925 concerned general duties and the suitability of accommodation offered to applicants to whom a housing duty was owed. They did not govern the factual assessment of permission or settled accommodation, and the shortage of authorised sites was irrelevant to that assessment.
5. Gypsy status and Article 14. The special protection discussed in Chapman, adopting Buckley v United Kingdom [1996] 23 EHRR 101, was directed to the particular needs and lifestyle of the gypsy community. It did not extend to the appellant, who was not a gypsy and had not shown that her New Traveller status constituted an identifiable and discrete minority. Her Article 14 argument also failed because no discriminatory comparison or properly structured claim had been advanced. The local authority’s findings and the county court’s decision disclosed no error of law.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 22 May 2007, the second appeal was dismissed: [2007] EWCA Civ 565.
• Kingston-upon-Thames County Court — HHJ Morgan entered his decision on 29 September 2006 on the appellant’s statutory appeal, and the Court of Appeal held that his conclusions could not be faulted in law.
• Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames — On 13 July 2006, the reviewing officer found the appellant intentionally homeless under section 191 of the Housing Act 1996.