Huzrat v London Borough of Hounslow

When determining whether an applicant is intentionally homeless, a local housing authority must apply the prescribed factual criteria under Housing Act 1996. The duty in section 11 of the Children's Act 2004 does not introduce a separate requirement to treat children’s best interests as a primary consideration where those interests cannot affect the statutory determination.

In assessing whether continued occupation was reasonable because rent was affordable, the authority must consider reasonable expenditure on children. That inquiry concerns the household budget. It is not a free-standing assessment of children’s best interests. Where such interests are legally relevant, the question is one of substance rather than formula.

The appellant, her husband and their children were evicted from privately rented accommodation after rent arrears accrued. The respondent accepted that she was homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need, but decided that she had become intentionally homeless.

On a review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996, an independent reviewing officer concluded that the rent shortfall was affordable and that the appellant had deliberately chosen to repay a friend rather than pay rent. The officer also concluded that it had been reasonable for the family to continue to occupy the property.

His Honour Judge McDowall, sitting at Willesden County Court, dismissed the appellant’s appeal on a point of law. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the reviewing officer had failed to comply with section 11(2) of the Children's Act 2004 by not treating the children’s best interests as a primary consideration.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. The authority was required to decide whether the appellant was intentionally homeless by applying the factual criteria in section 191 of the Housing Act 1996. The statutory question whether an act or omission was deliberate could not be altered by the section 11 duty in the Children's Act 2004.

2. The authority did have to consider whether it was reasonable for the family to continue to occupy the accommodation. That required an examination of income, expenditure and the reasonable costs of caring for the children. The relevant issue was whether the household budget left sufficient funds to pay rent. It was not an occasion for a separate best-interests assessment capable of changing the statutory test.

3. The review decision made the necessary substantive assessment. It recorded the family circumstances and found that the failure to pay rent resulted from the appellant’s decision to repay a friend, rather than from the reasonable needs of her young children. The absence of express best-interests language did not establish a legal error.

4. Pieretti v Enfield London Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1104 was distinguishable. In that case disability could bear directly upon whether non-payment of rent was deliberate and in good faith. Here, the asserted best interests of the children could not affect the statutory factual criteria.

5. Section 11 did not authorise the court or authority to rewrite section 190(2) of the Housing Act 1996. The statutory scheme itself made separate provision for referral and assistance concerning children where an applicant was intentionally homeless.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the appellant’s appeal and upheld the intentional-homelessness review decision.
• Willesden County Court: His Honour Judge McDowall dismissed the appellant’s appeal on a point of law on 18 January 2013.