White v Mayor And Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark

For intentional homelessness, the decisive question is whether the applicant deliberately did or failed to do something that caused the loss of accommodation which it would have been reasonable to continue occupying. A person’s inability, at the relevant time, to make an application under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 does not prevent the conduct from being causative or deliberate. A local authority may therefore find that a 13-, 14- or 15-year-old acted deliberately, while treating that person as unable to apply under the statutory scheme. Whether conduct caused the loss of accommodation and whether its consequences were reasonably foreseeable are ordinarily questions of fact. On a second appeal, such questions do not ordinarily raise an important point of principle or practice or provide a compelling reason for permission.

The applicant became homeless after being excluded from her mother’s home in February 2006. Southwark Council accepted that she was homeless and in priority need but decided that she had become intentionally homeless because she deliberately breached reasonable house rules, knowing that this could lead to her being asked to leave.

On review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996, the decision was upheld. The applicant appealed to the Lambeth County Court under section 204 on a point of law, but HHJ Simpson dismissed the appeal on 30 January 2008. Rimer LJ refused permission to appeal on paper. The applicant renewed the application before the Court of Appeal. The issues were whether her conduct caused the loss of accommodation and whether a person under 16 could intentionally cause homelessness consistently with the statutory policy concerning capacity to apply.

1. Application refused. The proposed second appeal did not satisfy rule 52.13 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. It raised no important point of principle or practice and disclosed no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.

2. The complaint that the applicant’s conduct was not causative concerned fact, not law. The reviewing officer found that the applicant deliberately refused to obey reasonable house rules and lost her accommodation as a consequence. The county court judge correctly upheld that conclusion. The issue had been considered by the local authority and did not warrant a second appeal.

3. The contention that the consequences were not reasonably foreseeable, because the conduct occurred when the applicant was 13 or 14, also concerned fact. The reviewing officer was entitled to find that she understood the house rules and that refusal to comply would lead to her being asked to leave and becoming homeless.

4. R v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Garlick [1993] AC 509 established, on the construction of what is now section 189 of the Housing Act 1996, that dependent children, normally including children under 16, are not among those in priority need to whom a local housing authority owes the relevant duty. It did not decide that a person under 16 cannot become homeless intentionally.

5. Section 191 of the Housing Act 1996 directs attention to whether the person deliberately did or failed to do something in consequence of which accommodation ceased to be occupied, where it would have been reasonable to continue occupying it. The question whether a person can apply under Part VII and the separate question whether conduct was deliberate and causative are distinct. A local authority may make the latter finding in relation to a person under 16.

The application was dismissed and permission to appeal refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to bring a second appeal refused; the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and did not satisfy rule 52.13 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.
• Lambeth County Court: HHJ Simpson dismissed the appeal on a point of law against the review decision on 30 January 2008.
• Southwark Council review: The review decision of 25 July 2007 upheld the council’s decision that the applicant was intentionally homeless.