Supreme Court to hear appeal over offer of accommodation 50 miles away

The Supreme Court has given a homeless mother of five permission to appeal a ruling that upheld a London borough’s offer of accommodation near Milton Keynes.

The appellant, Titina Nzolameso, had until November 2012 lived in a four-bedroom house in Westminster.

However, following a reduction in 2012 to the amount of housing benefit, Ms Nzolameso became unable to afford the rent. She became homeless, together with her five children.

Westminster accepted that it owed her the main housing duty under s. 193 of the Housing Act 1996 and in January 2013 offered her temporary accommodation in the form of a five-bedroom house more than 50 miles away in Bletchley, near Milton Keynes.

Ms Nzolameso refused that offer. She argued that she had lived in Westminster for more than four years and had many friends who provided her with emotional and practical support, in particular with looking after her children.

The appellant argued that the house in Bletchley was too far from her children's schools and that she did not know anyone in the area who would give her the same support as her friends in Westminster.

As a result of the rejection of the offer, the council decided that it had discharged its duty towards Ms Nzolameso and was no longer under a duty to make accommodation available to her.

Ms Nzolameso then asked for a review both of the decision that the house at Bletchley was suitable for her and of the decision that Westminster had discharged its duty to provide her with accommodation.

A review was carried out, but the reviewing officer upheld both decisions.

Ms Nzolameso appealed against those decisions under s.204 of the 1996 Act. His Honour Judge Hornby in the Central London County Court expressed sympathy for Ms Nzolameso, but he upheld the decision of the reviewing officer and dismissed the appeal.

In Nzolameso v City of Westminster [2014] EWCA Civ 1383 the Court of Appeal rejected her appeal against the decision in the County Court.

The key issue before the court was what factors could properly be taken into consideration by a local housing authority when deciding whether it was reasonably practicable to accommodate a particular homeless person within its own district, bearing in mind that the accommodation may be of no more than a temporary nature.

Lord Justice Moore-Bick said: “In my view, when considering whether it is reasonably practicable to provide an applicant with suitable accommodation in its own district, a housing authority is entitled to have regard to all the factors that have a bearing on its ability to provide accommodation to that person, including the demands made upon it and the pressures on its resources, whether of a financial or administrative nature.”

He added that it had not been necessary for the reviewing officer to explain in detail what other accommodation was available to Westminster outside its own district and why it had not been offered to Ms Nzolameso.

Ms Nzolameso appealed and was this week given permission by the Supreme Court.

The appeal – to be heard on 17 March 2015 – is expected to cover three issues:

• The extent and meaning of the phrase “reasonably practicable” in section 208 of the Housing Act 1996;
• The intensity of inquiry into and the necessary level of justification for not accommodating within the district; and
• The extent of the obligation in statutory guidance to secure accommodation as close to the authority’s area as possible.

Jayesh Kunwardia, the appellant’s lawyer at Hodge Jones & Allen, said: “It cannot be right that council tenants are threatened with homelessness unless they agree to uproot themselves from communities they have lived in for years. Westminster, like other councils, is under great financial pressure but this case heightens the need for the court’s scrutiny since otherwise councils may be tempted to save money by moving homeless households out of their area.

“In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the council looked to find accommodation in or closer to Westminster for my client at all. This decision brings long-awaited fresh hope for my client and is one of the most important social housing judgments for decades.”

The firm said Ms Nzolameso’s children were aged between 8 and 14 and had been separated into care across three homes.

Hodge Jones & Allen have instructed Martin Westgate QC and Lindsay Johnson from Doughty Street Chambers.