Lee v Rhondda Cynon TAF County Borough Council

A housing authority considering a homelessness application by a Gypsy or Traveller must give genuine special consideration to the applicant’s culture and wish to live in a caravan. Article 8 does not require the authority to provide a site or guarantee that way of life. Where a site is unavailable or cannot readily be made available, conventional accommodation may be suitable if it meets the Wednesbury minimum standard.

In the ordinary prompt process under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, the authority need not investigate acquiring land and obtaining planning permission for a single caravan. Exceptional circumstances, such as a real risk of psychiatric harm, may justify further inquiry. Guidance cannot lawfully treat Gypsies and Travellers as identical to other applicants without special consideration.

Ms Lee, a Gypsy and mother of two children, had lived without permission on a council-owned caravan site. The Council accepted that she was homeless or threatened with homelessness, eligible for assistance and in priority need. It made a final offer of a council tenancy in Beddau, which Ms Lee refused because of her cultural aversion to conventional housing and concerns about the locality.

Following a review, the Council concluded that no suitable caravan site or land was available in its area and upheld the offer as suitable. Ms Lee’s appeal to Cardiff County Court was dismissed by Mr Recorder Keyser QC. She appealed to the Court of Appeal, contending principally that the Council should have considered acquiring a site for her and had made inadequate inquiries.

Appeal dismissed. Longmore LJ gave the judgment of the court. Laws LJ and Richards LJ agreed.

1. Article 8 required the Council to give special consideration to Ms Lee’s position as a Gypsy, her cultural aversion to conventional housing and her family circumstances. It did not impose a duty to guarantee an adequate number of caravan sites. The approaches in Chapman v UK [2001] 33 EHHR 18, R (Price) v Carmarthenshire CC [2003] EWCA 42 Admin and Codona v Mid-Bedfordshire District Council [2004] EWCA Civ 925 showed that bricks-and-mortar accommodation could be suitable if the authority had given the claimant’s culture genuine consideration and the offer met the Wednesbury minimum standard.

2. The Council had done so. Its decision letter considered Ms Lee’s cultural aversion, support network, children’s schooling, medical arrangements and preferred locality. It had made enquiries and found no available caravan site or other land. Its conclusion that the offered accommodation was suitable was open to it.

3. The Council was not ordinarily required, within the prompt homelessness process under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, to investigate acquiring land, securing planning permission and establishing a site for a single applicant. That process would be inconsistent with the statutory function and with the established proposition that conventional accommodation may be suitable for a Gypsy applicant. The court observed that unusual circumstances, such as a risk of psychiatric harm, might warrant further inquiries; none existed here.

4. It was inaccurate for guidance to state that Gypsies and Travellers should simply be considered on the same basis as every other applicant. The Council had nevertheless given the requisite special consideration and could not have been misled by the guidance.

5. The court refused permission to raise new arguments about the court’s role in determining reasonable inquiries and intensified Article 8 review. They had not been advanced before the Recorder, no specific further inquiry was identified, and the statutory appeal jurisdiction was akin to judicial review.

The order was that the appeal be dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed Ms Lee’s appeal from the County Court: [2008] EWCA Civ 1013.
• Cardiff County Court Mr Recorder Keyser QC dismissed Ms Lee’s appeal against the Council’s homelessness review decision. No citation was stated.
• Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council an independent review panel upheld the suitability of the final offer of conventional accommodation.