Denton v London Borough Southwark

Intentional homelessness under section 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996 must be determined from all the circumstances. A family home differs from rented accommodation, but an adult child may reasonably be expected to respect reasonable household requirements.

Reasonableness of continued occupation must be assessed separately from causation. The authority must disregard the applicant’s deliberate conduct which caused the accommodation to be lost. The housing authority decides what inquiries are necessary. Its failure to inquire further is unlawful only where no reasonable authority could have regarded the additional inquiries as unnecessary.

The respondent, a young adult with learning difficulties and depression, had lived in his mother’s home until she required him to leave because of threatening, abusive and disruptive behaviour. After subsequently leaving his sister’s home, he applied to the appellant housing authority for homelessness assistance.

The authority found that he was homeless intentionally. Its reviewing officer upheld that decision under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996. HHJ Cotran allowed the respondent’s appeal, quashed the review decision and held that the authority had failed to consider the deterioration of the family relationship and the parties’ depression.

The authority appealed. The central issue was whether its assessment of intentional homelessness, including the reasonableness of continued occupation and the scope of its inquiries, disclosed an error of law.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. The reviewing officer’s decision disclosed no error of law. The respondent’s county court appeal against the review decision was therefore dismissed.

2. Section 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996 contains four distinct requirements: a deliberate act or omission; a causal connection between that conduct and cessation of occupation; accommodation available for occupation; and accommodation which it would have been reasonable to continue to occupy. The county court had erred by conflating causation with the reasonableness of continued occupation.

3. Intentional homelessness is fact-sensitive and must be determined from all the circumstances. The previous accommodation’s character as a family home is relevant because occupation of a family home differs materially from occupation under a tenancy. Nevertheless, people living together must respect each other’s needs and comply with reasonable requests. Requirements that an adult child refrain from drug use and threatening or abusive behaviour were reasonable.

4. The respondent’s deliberate bad behaviour caused the loss of his home. In deciding whether continued occupation would have been reasonable, however, the authority had to disregard the deliberate conduct which caused him to leave. The temporal approach in R v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC ex p P was correct in general: reasonableness is assessed on the hypothesis that the relevant deliberate act or omission had not occurred.

5. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the private life of children and adults but is not absolute. Airey v Ireland [1979] EHRR 305 did not establish a right to state-provided accommodation for a family member who deliberately behaved so that continued residence with the family became impossible.

6. A housing authority determines what inquiries are necessary under section 184. A court may intervene only if no reasonable authority could have regarded the suggested further inquiries as unnecessary. The mother’s willingness to receive the respondent back if he behaved reasonably gave the authority no reason to investigate further whether the relationship had otherwise broken down or whether her health would deteriorate.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2007] EWCA Civ 623, unanimously allowed the housing authority’s appeal and directed that the respondent’s appeal against the review decision be dismissed.

2. Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court: HHJ Cotran allowed the respondent’s appeal on 9 October 2006 and quashed the review decision. The judge held that the authority had failed to consider material features of the family relationship and the parties’ depression.

3. Housing authority review: On 19 June 2006, the reviewing officer upheld the original decision that the respondent had become homeless intentionally within the Housing Act 1996.