Escott, R (On the application of) v Chichester District Council

Suitable accommodation under the homelessness legislation is assessed in the light of the applicant’s circumstances, but the duty does not ordinarily require a local authority to provide furnished accommodation or particular household items. During an emergency, the authority may lawfully provide available accommodation which meets the applicant’s essential housing needs, while balancing individual vulnerability against scarcity of accommodation and operational pressures. A microwave may constitute adequate basic cooking provision. The court will not require a local authority to provide a fridge, cooker, bed or other furniture where the accommodation offered is otherwise suitable and the authority has acted reasonably in the circumstances.

The claimant was accommodated by the defendant under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 after applying as a homeless person. During the COVID-19 lockdown, he argued that his medical history made him particularly vulnerable and that shared accommodation was unsafe. The defendant subsequently offered him a self-contained but initially unfurnished flat, together with various items of assistance.

The claimant sought interim relief, contending that the accommodation was unsuitable because it lacked a fridge, cooker, bed and basic furniture. The central issue was whether the statutory duty to secure suitable accommodation required the authority to provide those facilities in the particular circumstances.

1. Application dismissed. The claimant had no reasonably arguable case that the defendant had acted unlawfully.
2. The statutory duty under sections 188(1) and 206 of the Housing Act 1996 is a duty to secure suitable accommodation. Suitability is a broad and elastic concept, assessed by reference to the applicant’s circumstances, but it is constrained by what accommodation is available and by the minimum standard required by law.
3. There is no general legal obligation requiring a local authority to provide furnished accommodation or basic furniture. Authorities may ordinarily discharge their duty by providing an unfurnished flat. The claimant’s submission that the argument applied generally, outside the particular COVID-19 circumstances, was rejected.
4. The claimant’s stronger argument was that his particular vulnerability required accommodation enabling him to shield continuously from infection. That consideration was relevant, but had to be balanced against the scarcity of accommodation, the heightened demand during the pandemic and the operational pressures on local authorities.
5. The self-contained flat offered at Westward House was suitable. The authority had provided or offered assistance including a microwave, fridge, mattresses and a sofa. A microwave was capable of cooking food and was adequate basic food-preparation equipment. The authority was not legally obliged to provide a separate cooker, fridge or bed.
6. The claimant’s rejection of the offered fridge because he might have to clean it himself was unreasonable. A sofa was also a reasonable short-term sleeping arrangement in the urgent circumstances.
7. The claim and application were premature and misconceived. The authority had acted reasonably in offering the accommodation available to it and in continuing to assist the claimant.

First-instance application for interim relief in judicial review proceedings. The judgment records that Murray J adjourned the initial application to an on-notice hearing, which was then determined by Mr Justice Martin Spencer.