A question of intent

In R (Savage) v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2010] EWHC 88 (Admin), the Administrative Court has quashed an authority’s decision that a claimant was not eligible for its rent deposit scheme because the decision had been made solely on the ground that the claimant was intentionally homeless. Andrew Dymond examines the ruling.

If an authority have reason to believe that a person is homeless or threatened with homelessness they must make inquiries so as to decide what duty they owe the applicant under Pt 7, Housing Act 1996. Where they decide that an applicant is eligible for assistance, homeless and in priority need, but became homeless intentionally, they must secure that accommodation is available for his occupation for such period as they consider will give him a reasonable opportunity of securing accommodation for his occupation and provide him with (or secure that he is provided with) advice and assistance to help him secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation: s.190(2). Before providing assistance under s.190(2), an authority must assess the applicant’s housing needs: s.190(4).

The London Borough of Hillingdon operated a “finders-fee” scheme under which they paid private sector landlords a non-returnable payment. In return, the landlord was required to let his property to a person referred by the authority. The criteria for the scheme stated that it was unlikely that a claimant who had become homeless intentionally would be eligible.

Factual background

The claimant was a single mother with a four-year-old son. From October 2005, she occupied privately rented accommodation. She fell into rent arrears and her landlord brought possession proceedings against her.

On October 20, 2008, she applied as homeless to the authority. On October 23, she was evicted and the authority provided her with interim accommodation pending their inquiries.

On December 3, 2008, the authority decided that the claimant was eligible, homeless, in priority need but had become homeless intentionally. In their decision letter, they told her that they would provide her with advice and assistance and would continue to accommodate her for 28 days to allow her the opportunity to find her own accommodation.

On December 18, 2008, the claimant saw the authority’s Housing Advice and Options Team. She was told that she would not be provided with a deposit for privately rented accommodation under the authority’s scheme because she had been found to be intentionally homeless.

On August 11, 2009, the claimant was evicted. On the same day, the authority’s social services department told her that they would accommodate her son but not her.

On August 17, 2009, the claimant’s solicitors contacted the authority’s housing department. They told a housing officer that the claimant had exhausted all of her housing options and asked the authority to provide her with a deposit for privately rented accommodation in discharge of their duty under s.190. The authority refused to do so and the claimant issued judicial review proceedings.

The Claim

The claimant contended that the authority had acted unlawfully by:

1. failing to carry out a proper assessment of her housing needs under s.190(4);
2. failing to provide proper advice and assistance to her under s.190(2);
3. adopting a rigid approach or fettering there discretion in the application of their scheme; and,
4. failing to secure her accommodation for a reasonable period under s.190(2)(a).

The authority opposed the claim and also argued that, in any event, the court should refuse to exercise its discretion to grant relief because:

• the claim should have been raised by way of a review followed by an appeal to the county court under s.204; and,
• there had been excessive delay in bringing the claim.

The Administrative Court quashed the authority’s decision that the claimant was not eligible for a rent deposit. The scheme itself was lawful. The authority, however, by deciding that the claimant was ineligible solely on the ground that she was intentionally homeless, had misunderstood their own scheme and applied it too rigidly. It followed that in doing so they had failed to provide proper advice and assistance under s.190(2)(b).

Nevertheless, it was artificial to require the authority to re-assess the claimant’s housing needs under s.190(4). They had already assessed, and were therefore aware of, her needs as they had considered them as part of the claimant’s homelessness application. The authority had not acted unlawfully by providing the claimant with temporary accommodation until August 11, 2009; it was for the authority to decide what length of time gave a reasonable opportunity of securing accommodation.

Judicial review was appropriate. It was doubtful whether the authority could review a discharge of their s.190 duties and so there might not be a right of appeal to county court.

There had not been excessive delay because the duty to provide advice and assistance under s.190(2)(b) was a continuing one.

Andrew Dymond is a barrister at Arden Chambers.