Anwar v Manchester City Council

When deciding whether to continue interim accommodation for an applicant awaiting review of a homelessness decision, the authority or court should balance the apparent merits, any new material capable of affecting the review, and the applicant’s personal circumstances and the consequences of refusal. Under Housing Act 1996, section 190(2)(a), the reasonable period of accommodation is assessed by reference to the applicant’s needs and circumstances, including realistic opportunities to obtain accommodation. The authority’s resources and competing demands are irrelevant. Failure to make reasonable efforts to secure accommodation strongly indicates that further time should not be allowed, although the period must still be assessed fairly and practically. Where the material is incomplete and a child may otherwise become street homeless, a short protective extension may be appropriate, even where the review is likely soon to confirm the original decision.

The claimant sought judicial review relief requiring Manchester City Council to continue providing temporary accommodation for him, his wife and their ten-month-old child while the council reviewed its decision that he had become intentionally homeless. The council had originally concluded that he had left accommodation available for his continued occupation and had provided a limited period of accommodation under Housing Act 1996, section 190(2).

An interim order made by Langstaff J required accommodation to be provided until the hearing. The claimant applied to continue that order. The central issues were the proper approach to the council’s discretion to provide interim accommodation pending review and whether a further reasonable period should be allowed for the claimant to secure alternative accommodation.

1. The application succeeded to a limited extent. The order requiring accommodation was extended until 6 pm on the following Friday, but no further relief was granted.

2. In exercising the discretion to provide interim accommodation, the authority must balance fairness between homeless persons against the possibility that the applicant is right and that refusal would deny an entitlement. The relevant considerations include: the apparent merits and whether the decision is contrary to those merits or finely balanced; whether new material, information or argument could materially affect the review; and the applicant’s personal circumstances and the consequences of refusal. These principles were drawn from R v Camden London Borough Council ex parte Mohammed [1998] 30 HLR 315.

3. For the duty under Housing Act 1996, section 190(2)(a), the reasonable period is determined by the applicant’s particular needs and circumstances, including the realistic possibilities of obtaining accommodation. The authority must not take account of its own resources or competing demands. A failure to make reasonable efforts is a strong indication that further time should not be granted. Even where reasonable efforts are made, the period will normally end when the available possibilities have not produced accommodation. The court applied the principles in R (on the application of Conville) v Richmond-Upon-Thames London Borough Council [2006] HLR 45.

4. The claimant was unlikely to succeed in the imminent review and had probably not made sufficiently strenuous efforts to obtain accommodation. Nevertheless, outstanding arrears might prevent immediate rehousing until the following Thursday. The possibility that a ten-month-old child might otherwise be street homeless, the arguability of the claim, the incomplete and hurried material, and the risk of serious error justified a short extension. The additional day allowed for possible payment and administrative delays.