Minott, R (On the Application Of) v Cambridge City Council (Rev 1)

Temporary accommodation may constitute normal residence of choice for local-connection purposes. Physical occupation for six months does not, however, automatically establish a local connection. The assessment is fact-sensitive and concerns whether the applicant has a connection with the area in real terms.

Where an applicant remains in accommodation after the housing authority’s duty has ended, permission has been withdrawn and the applicant is required to leave, unlawful occupation and the mere passage of time may not amount to a new fact supporting a further homelessness application. A refusal of a further application is lawful where it is rationally treated as based on the same facts, or as fanciful, particularly where the applicant has frustrated an accepted referral to another authority.

The claimant challenged Cambridge City Council’s refusal to accept a fresh homelessness application under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. He had initially been accommodated under the interim duty, but Cambridge concluded that he had a local connection with Sandwell and referred his case there. Sandwell accepted the referral. Cambridge then terminated the claimant’s licence and its housing duty ended, but he remained in the accommodation without permission.

The claimant later asserted that his continued occupation for more than six months established normal residence and a local connection with Cambridge. The central issues were whether that occupation constituted a new fact for a further application and whether the council’s refusal was irrational or involved an error of law.

1. Temporary accommodation and local connection. Residence in temporary accommodation can constitute normal residence of choice and may contribute towards a local connection under section 199 of the Housing Act 1996. The court accepted the principle in Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [2003] 1 AC 547, but held that it did not establish that six months’ physical occupation automatically creates a local connection. The issue remains fact-sensitive.
2. Effect of unlawful occupation. The claimant occupied lawfully until 2 September 2019. Permission had then been withdrawn, the referral to Sandwell had been accepted, and Cambridge owed no further housing duty. His continued occupation was unlawful and was deliberately maintained to obtain six months’ occupation. In those circumstances it could not establish a local connection.
3. Further homelessness application. Under Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC [2005] 1 WLR 2103, a further application cannot be rejected merely because it follows an earlier application. It may be rejected where it is based on exactly the same facts, or where alleged new facts are known to be fanciful or trivial. Here, the only alleged new fact was the passage of time during unlawful occupation. That was not a material new fact and the application was fanciful in the circumstances.
4. Public law review. Applying the approach in R (May) v Birmingham CC [2012] EWCA 1399 (Admin), the question was whether the decision was one which no reasonable authority, properly directing itself, could have reached. The council’s decision was rational and disclosed no error of law.
5. The claim was dismissed. Counsel were directed to draft the appropriate costs order.