Our monthly Housing Case Law brings you a roundup of the latest cases and court decisions in one practical update.

Reading BC v Holland [2023] EWHC 1902 (Ch)

High Court, 11 August 2023

The High Court has held that a local authority had sufficiently considered its Public Sector Equality Duty before commencing possession proceedings, on anti-social behaviour grounds, against a disable tenant.

A local authority (Reading Borough Council) granted Ms Holland an introductory tenancy of a flat in sheltered accommodation.

Ms Holland had been diagnosed with emotionally unstable personality disorder (EUPD) but, subsequently, allegations of anti-social behaviour towards housing staff and neighbours, and breaches of the tenancy were made against her. Amongst other things, Ms Holland’s excessive use and damage of the block’s emergency call system had placed other residents at risk. Some of the residents had consequently asked to leave.

Reading Borough Council carried out a formal equality and disability discrimination assessment and decided to serve Ms Holland with notice of possession proceedings under section 127 of the Housing Act 1996.

Ms Holland contested the decision, claiming that possession would be disproportionate, and a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty and section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits discrimination arising from a disability. She argued that eviction with an offer of suitable alternative accommodation was proportionate.

A specialist in forensic psychiatry was jointly instructed for the trial and his report concluded that Ms Holland had EUPD, which amounted to a disability within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 and that, although there was a connection between Ms Holland’s behaviour and her EUPD, it did not absolve her from responsibility for her actions.

The County Court awarded outright possession. Ms Holland appealed.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that, amongst other things, it could not see any basis for interfering with the original decision that Reading Borough Council had adequately considered the effect of eviction upon Ms Holland in the light of her EUPD. Based on the circumstances and evidence laid before it, the County Court judge had been correct to find Ms Holland’s eviction without suitable alternative accommodation was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

This ruling highlights that sometimes a balancing exercise is required, and that the courts have to consider the impact that eviction would have on the tenant against the impact of the tenant’s behaviour on neighbours and the risks posed in terms of the management of the property.

A copy of the judgment is here.

Hodge v Folkestone and Hythe DC [2023] EWCA Civ 896

Court of Appeal, 27 July 2023

The Court of Appeal has held that a local authority had been entitled to decide that a hostel room that a homelessness applicant had previously occupied, and deliberately chosen to leave, was “accommodation” within the meaning of section 91(1) of the Housing Act 1996.

Ms Hodge had a history of mental health difficulties and had been diagnosed with personality disorders. She had been living in a room in a hostel provided by a charity, Porchlight, and had later moved in with members of her family before renting a flat from a friend. She subsequently applied to Folkestone and Hythe District Council (The Council) for accommodation as a homeless person. 

The Council determined that, in spite of her mental health issues, Ms Hodge had not suffered a temporary aberration of mind and that she was intentionally homeless for the purposes of section 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996. It determined that the room at the hostel was “accommodation” and that she had left it without any good reason.

Ms Hodge challenged the decision, but it was upheld on review. An appeal to the County Court also failed. Ms Hodge appealed, arguing that the Council had erred in concluding that the room was settled “accommodation” for the purposes of the Housing Act 1996.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the question of whether the room was “accommodation” was for the Council to decide. There was no reason why housing schemes such as the one run by Porchlight could not be classed as “accommodation”. The Council had been entitled to decide that the room was accommodation and that, consequently, Ms Hodge had become intentionally homeless by leaving it without any good reason.

A copy of the judgment is here.

R (Ahamed) v Haringey LBC [2023] EWCA Civ 975

Court of Appeal, 11 August 2023

The Court of Appeal has held it is possible that accommodation which it was not reasonable to expect a person to continue to occupy might nevertheless be deemed as “suitable accommodation” for the purposes of the section 193 duty to accommodate unintentionally homeless persons in priority.

Ms Ahamed had been granted leave to remain in the UK and had therefore lost her eligibility for asylum seekers' accommodation through the National Asylum Support Service. She submitted a homelessness application to the London Borough of Haringey. Although she claimed to suffer from high blood pressure, hearing impairment and Type 2 diabetes, the Council determined that she was no more vulnerable than the average person. She was offered a single room in a hostel, with shared kitchen and bathroom facilities. The Council was satisfied that this accommodation was suitable and would be available to her for at least six months and, accordingly, determined that the section 193 [of the Housing Act 1996] duty to persons with priority need who were not intentionally homeless did not apply to her because she was not homeless.

One month later, Ms Ahamed asked for alternative accommodation under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996. The Council refused, maintaining that the hostel accommodation was suitable. She sought permission to apply for judicial review of that decision. This was refused. She sought a review of the decision, which was upheld. At the Court of Appeal, Ms Ahamed contended that:

1. she was homeless
2. the Council had not made sufficient inquiries into her case
3. there had been a breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal on all counts, held that:

1. the Council had been entitled to determine that Ms Ahamed was not homeless, as the hostel was suitable and it was reasonable for Ms Ahamed to continue to live there for an indefinite period
2.  the Council’s review officer was aware of Ms Ahamed’s medical conditions and had accepted that she was disabled; he had investigated the implications of her medical issues by considering NHS advice and contacting her health care assistant. No further enquiries were needed
3. the review officer had had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty in the context of the suitability of the accommodation.

A copy of the judgment is here.

Webb-Harnden v Waltham Forest LBC [2023] EWCA Civ 992

Court of Appeal, 22 August 2023

The Court of Appeal has held that a local authority had not breached the Public Sector Equality Duty when deciding to offer private out-of-borough accommodation to a homeless single mother who was subject to the benefit cap.

Ms Webb-Harnden was a single mother with three children who had lived in London all her life. She had become unintentionally homeless and was in priority need. She applied to the London Borough of Waltham Forest (The Council) for assistance. The Council had a policy of offering private rented sector accommodation as it had a very limited supply of social housing. Ms Webb-Harnden accepted an offer of a fixed term 24-month private tenancy of a three-bedroom flat in Walsall. The offer letter stated that the Council’s duty under s.193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 would come to an end whether the offer was accepted or rejected.

Ms Webb-Harnden requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation, contending that her support network was in London and that she had been unfairly treated because of the benefit cap which meant that she could not afford the rent for a suitable property in London. The reviewing officer upheld the Council’s decision, finding that the Council did not have a suitable (or affordable) three-bedroomed property available for her in or near London.

Ms Webb-Harnden contended that the Council:

1. had breached the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 by failing to consider the discriminatory impact of moving her out of borough due to being impacted by the benefit cap
2. could have provided her with temporary accommodation and not brought the section193(2) duty to an immediate end.

The County Court dismissed her appeal, so Ms Webb-Harnden appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the review office had taken into account section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 when deciding that the offer of accommodation in Walsall was reasonable and that Council’s decision to discharge its duty under s 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 by arranging that offer was lawful. When deciding whether to offer a particular property, the Council also had to ascertain whether it was affordable for the person, meaning that it had to take into account the available welfare benefits and the operation of the benefit cap.

A copy of the judgment is here.