Council wins Court of Appeal battle over whether appellant became "homeless intentionally"

Hearing the appeal from the decision of Coventry County Court, Lord Justice Newey said council officers had been entitled to conclude the appellant had become intentionally homeless and his accommodation was not analogous to a refuge.

Coventry concluded the appellant, had become “homeless intentionally” within s191(1) of the Housing Act 1996, which was confirmed on review and upheld by the county court.

Newey LJ said the core issue was whether it was reasonable for the appellant to continue to occupy accommodation the council had secured for him.

The council argued that it was and when his behaviour there resulted in his eviction, he became intentionally homeless.

The appellant contended that it was not reasonable for him to continue to occupy the accommodation and so his conduct could not lead to an eviction rendering him intentionally homeless.  He maintained he was homeless even when living in the accommodation concerned.

He moved there after complaints about his conduct at two other homes. The council told him the placement was given on an emergency basis and that its duty to him would be discharged if he was “evicted from the accommodation for such things as anti-social behaviour, smoking in the property, having guests and not abiding to the establishment rules”.

The accommodation provider later asked the council to evict the appellant for breaking into other occupants’ rooms.

Coventry then told him: “You have become intentionally homeless from accommodation made available for your occupation.”

The appellant asked for a review and Central England Law Centre argued s3 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 applied and that the property was not reasonable to continue to occupy.

The review officer responded: “I have been provided with no evidence as to why the property was not suitable for you or reasonable to occupy. I have seen no evidence that the landlord is biased towards you and only reported to us incidents that caused them concern - such as damage to property, your aggressive and threatening behaviour towards other residents and theft of items from other rooms.

Newey LJ noted the appellant’s accommodation had been a ‘halfway house’ for recovering drug addicts where he had his own bedroom and use of shared kitchen and other facilities.

“There is no suggestion that the accommodation was unaffordable or deficient in its physical characteristics (too small, say) and, by the time the provider of the accommodation asked for his eviction, [the appellant] had lived there for more than seven months,” the judge said.

He explained: “Common sense suggests that the review officer was entitled to conclude that…[the appellant] had accommodation which it was ‘reasonable for him to continue to occupy.’”

Dismissing the idea that the accommodation was similar to a refuge, the judge pointed out there were no comparable restrictions to those of a refuge.

Newey LJ concluded: “In all the circumstances, it seems to me that the review officer was amply entitled to conclude that it had been ‘reasonable for [the appellant] to continue to occupy’ [the property] and, hence, that he had become homeless intentionally.

Lord Justice Baker and Lord Justice Underhill both agreed with the judgment.

Mark Smulian