Alam v London Borough of Tower Hamlets

For the purposes of Housing Act 1996, a person’s status as homeless under Part 7 is distinct from entitlement to assistance or accommodation under that Part. A person may remain homeless even though the authority owes no housing duty because, for example, the person is not in priority need. Temporary accommodation provided pending determination of a homelessness application does not ordinarily remove that status where it lacks sufficient permanence and security.

An allocation scheme required by section 167 must secure reasonable preference for people who are homeless within the meaning of Part 7. Where the scheme expressly places such applicants in a higher priority group, the authority must apply it according to its terms. Reasonable preference is a head start, not a guarantee of rehousing, and priority between applicants in the same group may still be determined under section 167(2A).

The claimant was assessed as homeless and eligible for assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, but was found not to be in priority need. His appeal against that finding was unsuccessful. He remained in temporary accommodation and applied separately for accommodation under Part 6.

The defendant’s allocation scheme placed applicants assessed as homeless under Part 7 in Community Group 2, but the claimant was placed in Community Group 3. He sought judicial review, challenging both the construction of the statutory scheme and its application to him. The central issues were whether he remained homeless within the meaning of Part 7 and whether the allocation scheme required him to be placed in Community Group 2.

1. Homelessness status. The claimant remained homeless within the meaning of Part 7. Temporary accommodation provided under section 188, by agreement, or pursuant to temporary court orders did not give him a right to occupy that particular accommodation within section 175(1). Nor was it accommodation which it was reasonable for him to continue to occupy under section 175(3), since the arrangement was temporary and lacked sufficient permanence and security.
2. The concept of being homeless within section 167(2)(a) is defined by section 175. It does not depend on intentional homelessness, priority need, or the existence of a current housing duty under Part 7. Those matters determine the assistance owed, not whether the person is homeless. A person who was homeless when applying for assistance retains that status, absent a relevant change of circumstances, even if the application is rejected because another statutory criterion is not met.
3. An applicant need not have made a Part 7 application before qualifying as homeless for section 167(2)(a). The issue may arise in the context of a Part 6 application, including for a person who is effectively homeless but does not seek Part 7 assistance.
4. The allocation scheme had to be construed purposively and as a whole, giving effect to all its words and preferring a lawful construction where available. Its reference to applicants assessed as homeless under Part 7 placed such applicants in Community Group 2, whether or not the authority owed them a housing duty. The claimant was therefore wrongly placed in Group 3.
5. This did not give every homeless applicant the same ultimate priority as an applicant in priority need. The scheme ranked applicants within Group 2 by health awards, bedroom need and referral date, consistently with section 167(2A). Reasonable preference was a reasonable head start, not an entitlement to be rehoused.
6. The court rejected the proposed discretionary refusal of relief. No relevant hardship, prejudice or detriment to good administration had been shown. The parties were to make submissions on the form of order required to give effect to the judgment.