Birmingham City Council v Ali & Ors

The House of Lords considered the duties of local housing authorities under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, in particular the meaning of "accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy" in section 175(3) and the duty to secure accommodation under section 193(2). The court held that those provisions look to the future as well as the present: a person may be homeless although they can remain in their present accommodation for a short time if it would be unreasonable to expect them to continue to occupy it for the foreseeable future.

Accordingly a local authority may lawfully accept that a household is homeless because their current accommodation is not reasonable for long-term occupation yet leave them there for a short period while suitable alternative accommodation is sought, but it cannot leave them there until a council allocation becomes available if that would mean they remain in unsuitable accommodation for an unreasonable period.

In the context of refuges the court held that a woman who flees domestic violence remains homeless while in a refuge and normally does not become intentionally homeless if evicted from the refuge; refuges are normally temporary and cannot generally be regarded as reasonable long-term accommodation.

Background and parties:

• Birmingham City Council appealed against the decisions of Collins J and the Court of Appeal in cases where six large families remained in overcrowded or unsuitable accommodation for many months or years before permanent rehousing.
• Moran (appeal joined) concerned a woman who fled domestic violence to a womens refuge, was evicted from the refuge for misconduct and was found by Manchester City Council to have become intentionally homeless.

Nature of the claims and procedural history:

• The claim in Birmingham involved judicial review of the councils approach to discharging the duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 and of its allocation policy which gave greater priority to those placed in temporary accommodation than to those left at home in unsuitable accommodation.
• In Moran the appellant challenged the decision that she had become intentionally homeless on eviction from a refuge. The cases reached the House of Lords on appeal from the Court of Appeal ([2008] EWCA Civ 48; [2008] EWCA Civ 378), Collins J having given the first instance judgment in R (Aweys) v Birmingham City Council [2007] EWHC 52 (Admin).

Issues framed by the court:

1. Whether the phrase in section 175(3) and the mirror wording in section 191(1) should be read only as referring to present occupation (so that homelessness requires that it would not be reasonable to remain another night) or as including an element of the foreseeable future.
2. Whether a womens refuge is "accommodation" for the purposes of Part 7 and, if so, whether it is reasonable to expect a woman to continue to occupy it.
3. Whether Birminghams allocation policy unlawfully disadvantaged homeless applicants left in unsuitable accommodation.

Reasoning and conclusions:

• The court concluded that the words "continue to occupy" and the context of Part 7 import a forward-looking element: reasonableness must be assessed with regard to how long the applicant would have to remain in that accommodation unless the authority took action.
• The authorities and practical policy considerations supported permitting local authorities to accept homelessness where current accommodation is unsuitable for longer-term occupation while allowing short-term occupation during the search for suitable accommodation, but courts must be prepared to intervene where the period left to elapse becomes unreasonable.
• In relation to refuges the court accepted that refuges are normally temporary places of safety; a woman in a refuge remains homeless and does not normally become intentionally homeless if evicted from the refuge for misconduct.
• The councils allocation policy was unlawful to the extent that it placed applicants left in unsuitable accommodation at a lower priority than those placed in other temporary accommodation without justification; Part 6 allocation priority and the Part 7 duty to secure accommodation are distinct and one cannot be used to evade the other.

Appeals allowed. The House held that section 175(3) and section 191(1) are forward-looking so that a person may be homeless even if it would be reasonable to remain in their accommodation for a short time, provided it would not be reasonable to continue to occupy it for the foreseeable future; authorities may temporarily leave such applicants in that accommodation while seeking alternatives but cannot leave them there until a council allocation if that would be for an unacceptably long period. A woman in a refuge remains homeless and does not normally become intentionally homeless if evicted from the refuge.

Appeal from the Court of Appeal decisions in R (Aweys) v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWCA Civ 48 and Moran appeals from [2008] EWCA Civ 378; first instance decision in R (Aweys) v Birmingham City Council [2007] EWHC 52 (Admin).