Court of Appeal rules against council over decision resident was not homeless

Sandwell Borough Council acted wrongly when it considered an application for a local resident to be treated as homeless, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

It also rejected an argument put by the council that since the applicant Nasibah Safi had had two more children while in the disputed accommodation - and the council had accepted this amounted to a change of circumstances - her appeal was now academic.

Sandwell in 2016 upheld at a homelessness review panel a decision that because she occupied a one-bedroom flat let to her by the council Ms Safi was not homeless and so her case did not give rise to a duty to provide suitable accommodation for her family under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.

She argued it was not reasonable for her to continue to occupy the flat, and she was therefore homeless by virtue of section 175(3) of the Act, having married and had one child since moving in and so suffering overcrowding.

Ms Safi also complained that the flat was damp, in disrepair, and difficult to access.

Sandwell responded that it later dealt with the disrepair and that her family would be registered on the waiting list for larger accommodation, but not teated as homeless.

Giving judgment in Safi vThe Borough Council of Sandwell [2018] EWCA Civ 2876, David Richards LJ said Sandwell failed to follow the procedure laid down in the regulations and acted unfairly in not providing Ms Safi with an opportunity to respond to the new and more detailed matters on which it relied for its final decision in June 2016.

These lapses meant that Sandwell “relied on the appellant's record of bids for properties to suggest that, if she were more flexible in her choice of areas, she ‘would be rehoused within a reasonable period of time’ and on her enhanced place on the housing list.

“The appellant had no opportunity to deal with this or with the more detailed consideration of the other issues contained in the Decision Notice dated 30 June 2016. Not only was this the consequence of non-compliance by the respondent with the regulations, it was also in my view an unfair way of proceeding.”

Mark Smulian