Araya, R (on the application of) v Leeds City Council

When deciding whether temporary accommodation is suitable under Housing Act 1996, a housing authority must consider the household’s needs, including the suitability of the location. Relevant considerations may include established community, educational, transport and support links. The court should assess whether the decision-making process was lawful, while recognising that suitability is fact-sensitive and that housing officers’ decisions should not be scrutinised as though they were statutory interpretations. Where emergency accommodation is expressly temporary and may have to be vacated at short notice, the authority may give limited notice if the decision is rational, humane and compatible with Article 8.

The claimant, a refugee from Eritrea with two young children, occupied emergency accommodation provided by Leeds City Council under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996. After approximately eight months, the Council required her to move on seven days’ notice to a one-bedroom flat at Mount Cross Hostel, which provided greater support and was intended to facilitate permanent accommodation.

She sought judicial review, arguing that the Council had failed to consider the location’s effect on her links with the Eritrean community and church in Harehills, and that the notice period was inadequate and infringed Article 8. The central issues were whether the suitability decision was lawfully reached and whether the notice to move was lawful.

1. Application dismissed. The Council had lawfully decided that Mount Cross Hostel was suitable accommodation for the claimant and her children.
2. The decision-maker had carefully considered the family’s housing needs. Those considerations included the nature and support available at the proposed accommodation, the presence of other Eritrean families, access to shops and services, transport links to Harehills, the claimant’s church and community ties, her bidding pattern, and the prospect of securing permanent accommodation.
3. The suitability of accommodation includes the suitability of its location. The Council had considered the relevant location factors, although the decision-maker had not used the word “location”. The reasoning showed that the issue had been addressed in substance. The court endorsed the approach illustrated by R v Newham London Borough Council ex parte Ojuri (1999) 31 H.L.R. 452, while emphasising that the decision was fact-sensitive and should not be applied mechanically.
4. The possibility that the claimant could have remained at the existing emergency accommodation did not make the decision unlawful. Moving her to Tier 1 accommodation was a rational step intended to promote a permanent housing solution, particularly given the limited prospect of realistic bids while she remained in emergency accommodation.
5. The seven-day notice period was lawful. The occupancy agreement warned that the accommodation might have to be vacated at short notice and required only minimal belongings to be kept there. The availability of places at Mount Cross Hostel also required decisions to be made promptly. In the circumstances, the decision was logical, treated the claimant with the required minimum of humanity, and did not infringe Article 8.