Oxford City Council v Bull

For priority need under the Housing Act 1996, the first limb of section 189(1)(b) asks where dependent children factually reside at the material date. Residence in temporary accommodation can count, and scarcity of housing resources is irrelevant to that factual inquiry. Resource scarcity may matter under the separate limb concerning where children might reasonably be expected to reside.

Intentional homelessness turns on whether the applicant deliberately caused the loss of accommodation that was available and reasonable to continue occupying. Taking children into a single room, when suitable family accommodation remained available with the other parent, may satisfy that test. A court should not replace supported factual findings in a review decision without an error of law.

After separating from his wife, Mr Bull moved into a single room. His three children later moved from the former family home to live with him, although they continued to stay with their mother. The council provided temporary accommodation while it investigated his application under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.

The council decided that the children did not reside with Mr Bull and that he was intentionally homeless because his conduct had led to eviction. On review, that decision was maintained. HHJ Harris QC, sitting in the Oxford County Court, allowed Mr Bull’s appeal and substituted findings of priority need and no intentional homelessness. The central questions before the Court of Appeal were whether the children resided with their father and whether his conduct made him intentionally homeless.

1. Disposition. Jackson LJ gave the leading judgment. Tomlinson LJ agreed. Pill LJ agreed with the conclusions and added reasons on intentional homelessness. The appeal was allowed.
2. Priority need. Temporary accommodation provided under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996 could count as residence when deciding whether dependent children resided with the applicant under section 189(1)(b). The approach in Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2001] UKHL 57 supported treating statutory temporary accommodation as residence. The first limb of section 189(1)(b) required a factual inquiry into where the children resided at the material date. Housing scarcity was irrelevant to that inquiry. Holmes-Moorehouse v Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council [2009] UKHL 7 concerned the separate question where children might reasonably be expected to reside, on which resource considerations could be relevant.
3. Intentional homelessness. Sections 175(3), 176 and 191(1) required consideration of the present and future position. The single room remained available and reasonable for Mr Bull to occupy because suitable family accommodation remained available with Mrs Bull and the children were not reasonably expected to reside permanently with him. His deliberate decision to allow the children to occupy the room caused the foreseeable loss of that accommodation. Islam [1983] 1 AC 688 was distinguishable because the applicant there had no alternative family accommodation. The guidance in Birmingham City Council v Ali [2009] UKHL 36 was applied.
4. Review decision. Applying the practical and benevolent approach described by Lord Neuberger in Holmes-Moorehouse, the review officer was entitled to find that there was no necessity for the children to move to Mr Bull’s accommodation. The county court judge had erred by substituting his own factual conclusion without identifying an error of law.
5. Orders. The first ground of appeal was dismissed. The second ground was upheld. The review officer’s decision that Mr Bull was intentionally homeless was reinstated, with the consequence that the council did not owe the full accommodation duty under section 193.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2011] EWCA Civ 609, the appeal was allowed. The first ground was dismissed and the second ground was upheld.
• Oxford County Court: HHJ Harris QC allowed Mr Bull’s appeal on 14 July 2010 and varied the review decision to find priority need and no intentional homelessness.