Council failed to make valid private rented sector offers to homeless woman, court rules
The London Borough of Waltham Forest failed to comply with its duties under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 when a homeless woman and her daughter were housed temporarily and then moved to an “open air brothel”, the High Court has ruled.
David Pittaway QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, said Waltham Forest had failed because there was no evidence that it made formal offers to applicant SH.
She travelled to the UK in 2012, having fled trafficking for sexual exploitation and was pregnant as a result of forced sexual intercourse.
SH was granted refugee status in 2014 and she applied to Waltham Forest as homeless, which accepted the duty to offer her suitable accommodation under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996.
It placed her in temporary accommodation and later in Ilford but the landlord later issued a no fault eviction so as to sell the property.
In August 2017 Waltham Forest offered her accommodation in Tottenham by a private rented sector (PRS) offer.
This though turned out to have communal grounds which Mr Pittaway described as “used as an open-air brothel where sexual activity can be seen by the claimant and her daughter.”
SH’s daughter’s school warned the council that seeing this was damaging the child’s mental health.
In July 2018 SH again approached Waltham Forest as homeless and the council offered a property in Kettering, which she rejected and then issued a letter before action.
Judge Pittaway said the case turned on whether the offers of tenancies at the Ilford or Tottenham properties were made in accordance with the provisions relating to private rented sector offers contained in section 193 (7AA) and (7AB) of the Act and the Homelessness (Suitability Accommodation) (England) Order 2012.
SH submitted that the absence of an offer letter for Ilford and of any proper enquiry into the suitability of the Tottenham property, meant neither of these provisions were met and so Waltham Forest had failed to discharge its duty under section 193.
The council argued that it had met its duties by offering the properties and that in the absence of documents the court should infer that the procedures were followed in accordance with the statutory requirements.
In SH, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Waltham Forest [2019] EWHC 2618 (Admin) Judge Pittaway said: “In my view the decisive evidence on this issue is to be found in the computer records [where] there is no reference to indicate that the defendant sent a standard form offer letter for the Ilford property.”
He said an entry could though be found relating to the Ilford property which read “section193 duty was not discharged at the time.”
The deputy judge said: “Taken with the fact that the claimant does not have in her possession a copy of any offer letter giving notification for the Ilford property, I have concluded that on this occasion an offer letter was not sent.”
He added: “It is, therefore, a requirement that the prospective tenant receives notification of the matters contained in the section. If the prospective tenant does not do so, then there was non-compliance with a statutory obligation.”
The Tottenham property was “never suitable accommodation, it seems to me that any proper due diligence should have alerted the defendant to the unlawful sexual activity that was taking place in the communal gardens of the Tottenham property.
“Bearing in mind that the defendants should have been aware of the particular characteristics of the claimant and her daughter, the offer should never have been made.”
Judge Pittaway concluded: “In my view, the section 193 duty, accepted on 20 April 2015, has never been validly discharged and continues, because neither the Ilford or Tottenham property were valid PRS offers within the meaning of section 193 (7AA) and (7AB) of the Act.
“Accordingly, the defendant acted unlawfully in breach of its statutory duty to secure suitable accommodation under section 193 of the Act.”
Mark Smulian
