Manchester City Council v Moran & Anor

For Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, a women’s refuge is capable of being accommodation. The question whether it would have been reasonable for an applicant to continue occupying it is fact-sensitive. It cannot be resolved by a blanket rule that refuge accommodation is always unreasonable, and temporary occupation alone is insufficient. The authority must consider the ordinary features of accommodation and additional refuge-specific matters, including the refuge’s nature, expected and usual length of stay, pressure on bed spaces, licence conditions, support and the risk to emergency provision. Suitability and settled accommodation address different statutory questions. The contrary approach in Sidhu (1982) 2 HLR 48 was wrong.

Two conjoined appeals concerned women who had fled domestic violence and were occupying women’s refuges. Manchester City Council decided that Sharon Moran had become intentionally homeless after her refuge licence was terminated for threatening behaviour. The Manchester County Court quashed that decision and directed a fresh decision. Ipswich Borough Council accepted that Rosemary Richards was owed the main housing duty, but later decided that she had become intentionally homeless after her refuge licence was terminated. The Ipswich County Court dismissed her appeal.

The Court of Appeal considered whether a refuge was accommodation for the purposes of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, whether it would have been reasonable for either woman to continue occupying it, and whether suitability or settled accommodation were relevant to the intentional homelessness issue.

Lord Justice Wilson gave the judgment of the court. Lord Justice Tuckey and the Master of the Rolls agreed.

1. Disposition. The Manchester appeal was allowed. The Ipswich appeal was dismissed.
2. A women’s refuge can be accommodation for the purposes of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. The decision in Sidhu (1982) 2 HLR 48, which treated women occupying refuges as homeless because the refuge was not accommodation, was wrong and inconsistent with Puhlhofer [1986] AC 484 and Awua [1996] 1 AC 55.
3. The question whether it would be reasonable for a woman to continue occupying a refuge must be decided on the facts under sections 175(3) and 191(1). In the absence of a statutory provision or an order under section 177(3) declaring refuge occupation unreasonable, neither housing authorities nor the courts may apply a blanket rule. The temporary nature of accommodation is insufficient by itself, although a refuge requires additional consideration of its particular characteristics.
4. The general factors include the accommodation’s size, type, quality, terms, affordability, location, facilities, suitability for individual health characteristics, length of occupation, occupants’ physical and emotional health, and expected future duration. Refuge-specific factors include the refuge’s nature, support, expected and usual length of stay, occupancy pressure, risk to emergency provision, licence conditions, and the woman’s need and ability to accept support.
5. Suitability under section 206(1) is the functions criterion and is distinct from the threshold criterion of reasonableness. Suitability is a higher standard. “Settled accommodation” is irrelevant to the threshold question and belongs to the separate issue whether later accommodation has broken the causal chain of intentional homelessness.
6. Although the reviewing officers had considered irrelevant matters, their conclusions were not unlawful because those errors could not reasonably have affected the result. Ms Moran had occupied a reasonable refuge for only 12 days and could have remained there until rehoused. Ms Richards had occupied her refuge for four months, but there were strong indications that permanent accommodation was imminent.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeals heard together; Manchester appeal allowed and Ipswich appeal dismissed, [2008] EWCA Civ 378.
• Manchester County Court: Mr Recorder Rigby quashed the reviewing officer’s decision that Sharon Moran was intentionally homeless and ordered a fresh decision.
• Ipswich County Court: His Honour Judge Holt dismissed Rosemary Richards’s appeal and upheld the decision that she was intentionally homeless.