Homeless families - when is a family accommodated "together"?

Supreme Court Main Entrance 03521C press office supplied  146x219The Supreme Court has just made an important decision about what counts as suitable accommodation for a homeless family. Stephen McNamara looks at some of the issues.

In the case of Sharif v The London Borough of Camden [2013] UKSC 10 the Sharif family consisted of two sisters (one of whom was 14), and their father. They had been accommodated in a three-bedroom house but in 2009 they were asked to move into two bedsits (on the same floor) in a hostel. Each bedsit was a single room with cooking facilities, plus bathroom/wc. One unit was for a single person and the other unit was suitable for 2 single people.

Ms Sharif challenged this offer as unsuitable on various grounds. When the case arrived in the Court of Appeal, the sole issue was as to whether such an offer was lawful at all, ie would it enable Ms Sharif to live "together with" her family members.

The Law

The underlying principle of the legislation is that a home is somewhere which can accommodate a family together. The critical statute is the Housing Act 1996 which first defines homelessness (at s. 175) and then sets out the familial obligation

Section 176: "Accommodation shall be regarded as available for a person's occupation only if it is available for occupation by him together with:

(a) any other person who normally resides with him as a member of his family, or

(b) any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him.."

Thus if there is an obligation to provide accommodation either on an interim basis (s. 188 (1)), or on a permanent basis – because the individual has a priority need and is not intentional homeless (s. 193(2)) – then he/she must be provided with accommodation together with their family members.

The issue for the Supreme Court in Sharif was: to what extent (if at all) does the 1996 Act imply a requirement that a family be accommodated not only together but in a single unit of accommodation. For example, would it ever be lawful to provide two flats to a family where there was an obligation to provide accommodation to enable them to live together?

There have been two interesting decisions in the Sharif case in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court and which are important for local authority lawyers to remember:

The Court of Appeal

Etherton LJ summarised: "17……….On any ordinary use of language, [two self -contained flats, on the same floor of the building, but a short distance apart] was not the provision of accommodation which the applicant and her father were to occupy 'together with' one another. They would be living close by each other, but separate from one another. No one could reasonably describe them, in such circumstances, as living 'together with' one another……It cannot be said, on any ordinary use of language, that persons living in separate self-contained flats, however close , and not sharing any communal area are residing together" (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court decision

Lord Carnwath took a different view about the ordinary meaning of "together with" - and was supported by three of the other judges (only Lord Kerr dissenting).

Lord Carnwath: "17…. The statutory test will be satisfied by a single unit of accommodation in which a family can live together. But it may also be satisfied by two units of accommodation if they are so located that they enable the family to live 'together' in practical terms".

So what does this mean in practice?

Best practice

Relevant council officers, including homelessness officers, will need to be informed of this decision. But it should be emphasised that it is a decision concerning the meaning of a phrase and does not enable them to escape the obligation to ensure that families do "live together". This will require real recorded consideration of what that would mean in practical terms.

Final words

Lord Carnwath: "I would emphasise the narrowness of the present decision. It does not give authorities a free hand. It is still a fundamental objective of the Act to ensure that families can 'live together' in the true sense. Accommodation , whether in one unit or two, is not "suitable" unless it enables that objective to be achieved"

Lord Hope:  "The test is not there to be exploited. It must be applied reasonably an proportionately".

And the warning from the dissenting judge, Lord Kerr: "But if the opportunity is available to house families in different living units, there is every reason to suppose that local authorities, with the pressures that are placed on them to meet housing need, will, perfectly understandably seek to exploit that opportunity to the fullest extent. There is therefore a real risk that on of the principal purposes of the legislation( that of bringing and keeping families together) will be, if not undermined, at least put under considerable strain".

Where next?

As changes to housing benefit impact on more and more families, local authorities are already aware of the need to tread carefully and to ensure lawful compliance when addressing capacity issues in local housing stock. The decision in Sharif reaffirms the obligation on the authority to house families together and to have a clear and defensible audit trail on the decision-making process.

Stephen McNamara is a consultant at Veale Wasbrough Vizards. He can be contacted on 0117 314 5449 or byThis email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..