Ugiagbe v London Borough of Southwark

Under section 191(2) of the Housing Act 1996, unreasonable, foolish or imprudent ignorance of a relevant fact does not by itself prevent an act from being done in good faith. The statutory concept of good faith connotes impropriety, dishonesty, wilful blindness, or some misuse or abuse of the homelessness legislation.

An applicant does not act in bad faith merely by failing to seek advice which would have corrected the relevant ignorance. The authority must consider the applicant’s subjective motivation and distinguish unreasonable conduct from deliberately shutting one’s eyes to an unwelcome truth.

The appellant and her two children occupied privately rented accommodation. When the landlord asked her to leave, she surrendered possession without knowing that he required a court order. She had previously declined to approach the council’s Homeless Persons Unit because advice from another council office had led her to believe that doing so would result in immediate homelessness and temporary accommodation.

The council decided on review that she had become intentionally homeless. His Honour Judge Welchman dismissed her statutory appeal in the Lambeth County Court. The central issue in the Court of Appeal was whether her deliberate surrender of the accommodation had nevertheless been an act in good faith while she was unaware of a relevant fact, within section 191(2) of the Housing Act 1996.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. The council’s review decision of 12 March 2008 was quashed. Lloyd LJ delivered the judgment, with which Jacob and Sedley LJJ agreed.

2. Section 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996 applied on its face. The appellant deliberately surrendered accommodation which remained available and which it was reasonable for her to continue occupying. That provision does not require the resulting homelessness to have been foreseen.

3. Section 191(2) qualified that result. It was accepted that the appellant’s ignorance of her right to remain until the landlord obtained a court order was ignorance of a relevant fact. The remaining question was whether she surrendered the accommodation in good faith.

4. Unreasonable, foolish or imprudent conduct is insufficient, without more, to establish an absence of good faith. As explained in O’Connor v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2004] EWCA Civ 394, section 191(2) imposes no requirement that ignorance of the relevant fact be reasonable. Wilful ignorance, including deliberately shutting one’s eyes to the obvious, fails the good-faith requirement.

5. The expression “good faith” connotes some impropriety or misuse or abuse of the legislation. Dishonesty is the clearest example. Wilful blindness and the use of a device to obtain homelessness assistance may fall within the same category. The observations about wilful ignorance in F v Birmingham City Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1427 were unnecessary to that decision because the applicant there had not been unaware of a relevant fact.

6. The appellant’s conduct did not fall within that excluded category. She had declined to approach the Homeless Persons Unit because council staff had inadvertently led her to expect the very consequence she wished to avoid. She was not avoiding information which she knew would be unwelcome. Her subjective motivation was the opposite of bad faith.

7. The appeal remained practically significant despite the appellant subsequently obtaining private accommodation. The earlier finding of intentional homelessness could still be considered if she later sought homelessness assistance. No substantive order beyond quashing the review decision was necessary.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was allowed unanimously and the council’s review decision dated 12 March 2008 was quashed: [2009] EWCA Civ 31.
• Lambeth County Court: His Honour Judge Welchman dismissed the appellant’s appeal on 1 July 2008, holding that the council had made no error of law.
• London Borough of Southwark: The council’s original decision, maintained on review, found that the appellant had become intentionally homeless.