Evans v Royal Borough of Kensington

For a second appeal, permission requires an important point of principle or practice or a compelling reason. Grounds that merely challenge factual findings do not meet that threshold. In determining intentional homelessness, a housing authority may treat cumulative antisocial behaviour and related events as the conduct leading to eviction. Accommodation is not necessarily unreasonable to continue to occupy merely because better supported alternatives exist. The Court of Appeal will not revisit such factual assessments on a second appeal.

This was a renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal from a statutory homelessness appeal in the Central London County Court. The local authority had decided under the Housing Act 1996, section 191(1), that the applicant became intentionally homeless after eviction from supported hostel accommodation, while arranging temporary accommodation under section 190(2). The Recorder’s decision was challenged on grounds concerning the deliberate act, guidance on mental illness and substance abuse, causation, and the reasonableness of continuing to occupy the accommodation. The central issue was whether those complaints raised an important point of principle or practice, or otherwise provided a compelling reason for a second appeal.

The renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal was refused.

1. Second-appeal threshold. The applicant had to identify an important point of principle or practice, or a compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. The grounds, viewed in substance, challenged factual findings made by the reviewing officer. They did not satisfy that threshold.
2. Intentional homelessness. The authority was entitled to treat the cumulative pattern of antisocial behaviour, together with the discovery of drugs, as the conduct which ultimately led to the eviction. The causation challenge therefore failed. The later discovery of drugs did not break the chain because the charity had already decided to proceed with the eviction before the discovery.
3. Mental illness and substance abuse. The court considered that the guidance in paragraph 11.17 of the Homelessness Code of Guidance 2006 required a temporary aberration to be caused by mental illness, frailty or an assessed substance abuse problem. An assessed substance abuse problem alone was insufficient. That construction was not necessary to the result, since the reviewing officer had expressly considered the guidance and had relevant medical evidence. A personal examination by the doctor providing that evidence was not required in every case.
4. Reasonableness of occupation. The availability of accommodation offering better care did not, by itself, mean that the existing accommodation was unreasonable to continue to occupy. The conclusion that the applicant could have remained temporarily while alternative supported accommodation was arranged was a factual assessment which could not properly be revisited on a second appeal. The temporary accommodation offered under section 190(2) also produced no real practical difference from the duty under section 193(2) if the applicant had not been intentionally homeless.

• Central London County Court: Mr Recorder Peter Susman QC dealt with the applicant’s statutory appeal in a reserved judgment delivered on 15 July 2015.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The renewed application for permission to bring a second appeal was refused: [2016] EWCA Civ 653.