Supreme Court to rule next week on test of vulnerability and homeless people
The Supreme Court will next week hand down a key ruling on three linked appeals considering a number of issues related to the proper test a local authority should apply when assessing whether a homeless person is "vulnerable" for the purposes of the Housing Act 1996.
Where a person is found to be ‘vulnerable’ for those purposes, they will be in priority need of housing.
The cases of Kanu v London Borough of Southwark, Johnson v Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council and Hotak v London Borough of Southwark were heard by the Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger, Lady Hale, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson and Lord Wilson) on 15-17 December 2014.
The Court will hand down its ruling next Wednesday (13 May).
CASE SUMMARIES (source: Supreme Court)
Hotak v London Borough of Southwark
The appellant suffers learning difficulties which affect his ability to cope with daily living. He relies on his brother for daily personal support.
The appellant and his brother lived together in a flat belonging to a friend but were required to leave due to over-crowding. They made an application for housing assistance from the council.
The council decided that the appellant was eligible for assistance and was unintentionally homeless. However, they found that he was not in priority need as a vulnerable person under s.189(1)(c) of the 1996 Act because he received assistance from his brother and, in a homeless situation, he would not suffer injury or detriment or be able to be less able to fend for himself than would the ordinary street homeless person.
The county court and the Court of Appeal upheld the council’s decision. The Court of Appeal ruling can be viewed here.
At issue was:
- “Whether the appellant was in priority need for the purposes of s.189 Housing Act 1996;
- Whether, in considering vulnerability due to mental illness/disability, a housing authority was entitled to consider support provided by a third party.”
Johnson v Solihull MBC
The respondent council concluded that the appellant, a homeless man with various personal problems including a history of drug use and incarceration, was not ‘vulnerable’ for the purposes of s.189(1)(c) of the 1996 Act. The review officer took into account the fact that many homeless people have drug problems in applying the "ordinary homeless person" test.
The Court of Appeal judgment can be viewed here.
At issue was: “What test should a local authority apply in determining whether an individual is ‘vulnerable’ and therefore in priority need for the purposes of the statutory homelessness provisions? In particular, should the individual be compared with ordinary homeless persons, or ordinary persons who happen to be homeless, and what factors can the local authority take into account?”
Kanu v London Borough of Southwark
The appellant suffers from physical and mental health problems. He was evicted from his private rented accommodation in November 2011.
He applied to the respondent council on the basis that he was threatened with homelessness and in priority need due to disability. He was placed in temporary accommodation pending a decision on his homelessness status.
On 21 March 2013, Southwark decided that although the appellant’s health problems would render him ‘vulnerable’ if he was on his own, he was not vulnerable (and, therefore, not in priority need) for the purposes of the 1996 Act due to support he could receive from his wife and son.
The appellant's appeal was allowed by Mr Recorder Matthews in Lambeth County Court on 22 November 2012 but this was reversed by the Court of Appeal on 29 July 2014. The Court of Appeal judgment can be viewed here.
At issue was: “Whether a housing authority, who would otherwise find a homeless individual ‘vulnerable’ for the purposes of the Housing Act 1996 and in priority need of housing, can refuse to do so due to support available from fellow homeless members of their household; if so, the scope and extent of the public body's duty of enquiry into the availability and efficacy of such support.”
