Tiemo, R (on the application of) v Lambeth London Borough Council

A challenge to interim accommodation based on alleged unaffordability may be premature where the applicant has not yet applied for housing benefit and the housing authority has given credible assurances that rent will not be enforced while the benefits position is resolved. Suitability, including affordability, must ultimately be assessed in the light of the applicant’s financial resources and housing costs. The court may adjourn enforcement proceedings to obtain a clearer factual basis concerning benefit entitlement, backdating and arrears.

The claimant and her son were provided with interim accommodation by Lambeth under Housing Act 1996, section 188, after facing homelessness. A judge subsequently ordered Lambeth to provide interim suitable accommodation. The claimant alleged that the accommodation was unsuitable because the rent exceeded her available income and placed her at risk of arrears, eviction and intentional homelessness.

Lambeth maintained that the application was premature. The claimant had not yet completed a housing-benefit application, the authority expected benefit to cover the rent, and it had assured her representatives that rent would not be enforced while the claim was pending. The issue was whether the accommodation complied with the interim order despite the asserted affordability problem.

1. The application to enforce the interim accommodation order was adjourned. No order was made at that stage.

2. The court accepted that affordability was relevant to suitability. In assessing suitability, the court would need to consider the claimant’s available financial resources and the costs of the accommodation, including rent and other associated liabilities. The court referred to the Homelessness Code of Guidance, paragraph 17.46, which requires consideration of whether housing costs can be met without depriving the applicant of basic essentials.

3. The present challenge was premature. No housing-benefit application had yet been completed, and it remained possible that benefit would be backdated to cover the claimant’s liability from 14 April 2020 and meet the continuing rent. The position concerning the claimant’s national insurance number and the benefits application was also unclear.

4. The local authority’s written assurances that it would not enforce rent while the benefits application was pending were material. The court therefore required further information about the application, any backdated benefit, and whether arrears had accrued before determining compliance with the order to provide suitable accommodation.

5. The matter was to return before the court in approximately four weeks if it did not resolve itself. The judge indicated that, if the claimant had acted reasonably and remained unable despite her efforts to secure benefits covering the rent, the authority should take a benign approach consistent with its assurances.