Ivan Beach v South Hams District Council

Whether accommodation is reasonable for a homeless applicant to continue occupying is fact-sensitive. Temporary accommodation, including a hotel room, is not excluded merely because it lacks permanence, security, cooking facilities or ordinary residential freedoms. The assessment considers its physical characteristics, restrictions, availability and the period before rehousing. Under the Housing Act 1996, s176 must be applied when each offer is made and in the context of the accommodation offered. An applicant may retain a long-term priority need involving children while lawfully being offered temporary accommodation alone where the children are safely accommodated elsewhere and cannot reasonably be expected to reside with the applicant temporarily. Deliberate failure to occupy accommodation that was available and reasonable to continue occupying can end the main housing duty through intentional homelessness.

The appellant applied to the respondent local housing authority for accommodation. The authority accepted that he was eligible, homeless and in priority need, and later accepted the main duty under s193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. It offered him a single room at the Seascape Hotel after his children had been removed from his care and were living with their mother. He failed to occupy the room consistently, and the authority decided that he had become intentionally homeless from it and that its duty had ended.

A reviewing officer upheld that decision on 18 July 2023. HH Judge Mitchell dismissed the appellant’s statutory appeal in the County Court at Plymouth on 12 January 2024. The Court of Appeal considered whether the hotel room was accommodation that was available and reasonable for the appellant to continue occupying, particularly given the accepted priority need involving his children.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. The appellant’s broad contention that hotel or seaside-hotel accommodation could never be reasonable to continue occupying was untenable. The statutory assessment is fact-sensitive and does not impose a general exclusion for hotel accommodation.
2. Under s191(1) of the Housing Act 1996, intentional homelessness required a deliberate act or omission causing cessation of occupation of accommodation which was available for the appellant’s occupation and reasonable for him to continue occupying. The deliberate failure to occupy and the resulting cessation were undisputed.
3. The question whether accommodation is reasonable to continue occupying does not require permanence or indefinite security. Following the principles identified in R v Brent LBC, ex parte Awua [1996] 1 AC 55, Birmingham City Council v Ali [2009] UKHL 36 and Kyle v Coventry City Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1360, physical characteristics and restrictions are relevant, but temporary accommodation may be reasonable for the period before rehousing. The room’s limitations did not make the reviewing officer’s conclusion unlawful, particularly as the evidence supported continued availability by extension of the booking.
4. Section 176 had to be applied when each offer was made and in the context of the temporary accommodation then offered. Although the appellant retained a long-term housing need including his children, the children were safely living with their mother and Children’s Services advised that they should remain there while he was in temporary accommodation. They could not reasonably be expected to reside with him in the hotel at that stage. The authority was therefore entitled to offer a room for the appellant alone.
5. The duty could continue while the manner of performing it changed as circumstances changed. The court left open, for want of full argument, whether an accepted priority-need status could later be reassessed and lost before permanent rehousing. On the facts, the room was available and reasonable to continue occupying, so the appellant became intentionally homeless from it and the main duty under s193(2) ended under s193(6)(b).

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal dismissed. The hotel room was available and reasonable for the appellant to continue occupying, and his deliberate failure to occupy it brought the main housing duty to an end. [2025] EWCA Civ 609.
• County Court at Plymouth: HH Judge Mitchell dismissed the appeal against the review decision on 12 January 2024.
• South Hams District Council: The reviewing officer confirmed the intentional-homelessness decision on 18 July 2023.