Joseph Kyle v Coventry City Council

For sections 175(3) and 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996, accommodation need not be available indefinitely, for a fixed period, or be tolerable for ever before continued occupation can be reasonable. The question is whether it is reasonable for the applicant to remain for the period before the authority is likely to re-house them. Physical conditions will often be central, but restrictions on ordinary use, affordability, violence, abuse and threats may also matter.

A review decision need address the issues squarely raised in the review, together with obvious matters. It need not answer every unadvanced potential sub-issue. Review decisions must be read realistically and benevolently, while showing proper consideration of the relevant statutory matters.

The Council accepted that Mr Kyle was homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. It therefore owed him the main housing duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. He occupied a room in supported shared accommodation for recovering drug addicts. After allegations that he had broken into and stolen from other rooms, the provider requested his eviction.

The Council decided, and then confirmed on review, that Mr Kyle had become intentionally homeless from his section 193 accommodation. Deputy Circuit Judge Gregory dismissed his County Court appeal under section 204. Mr Kyle appealed, contending that the accommodation was not reasonable to continue to occupy, and that the review decision gave inadequate reasons.

1. Appeal dismissed. The review officer was entitled to find that it had been reasonable for Mr Kyle to continue occupying the supported accommodation. His eviction following deliberate conduct could therefore render him intentionally homeless under section 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996.
2. Sections 175(3) and 191(1) are counterparts. The statutory inquiry does not ask only whether the applicant can stay one more night. Equally, it does not require an entitlement to stay indefinitely, or accommodation that can reasonably be endured for ever. In general, the relevant period is that before the authority is likely to re-house the applicant. Physical conditions will often be important, but restrictions on use, affordability, violence, abuse and threats may also be relevant.
3. R (Aweys) v Birmingham City Council; Moran v Manchester City Council [2009] UKHL 36 did not make a women’s refuge analogous to all temporary or supported accommodation. The refuge there was a temporary safe haven rather than a place to live. Its exceptional restrictions made normal family life impossible. Mr Kyle had his own room, shared facilities, no identified physical or affordability deficiency, and an expectation of re-housing in the reasonably near future. Its restrictions did not have the character of the refuge rules.
4. The review officer was not required to give reasons about the no-visitors rule, smoking restrictions or the temporary character of the placement. Those matters had not been squarely advanced as reasons why continued occupation was unreasonable. The review addressed the actual contention of provider bias. In any event, the prospect of relatively prompt re-housing tended to support the reasonableness of continued occupation. Review decisions are read benevolently and without a nit-picking approach, but must address the main relevant issues.
5. For completeness, a person accommodated under section 188 remains homeless by operation of the statutory scheme. That proposition did not assist Mr Kyle because, when the material conduct occurred, his accommodation was provided pursuant to the accepted main housing duty.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Dismissed Mr Kyle’s appeal from the County Court.
• County Court at Coventry Deputy Circuit Judge Gregory dismissed Mr Kyle’s section 204 appeal on 17 February 2023.
• Coventry City Council The review decision of 24 August 2022 upheld the decision that Mr Kyle had become intentionally homeless from accommodation provided under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996.