In South Oxfordshire District Council  Fertre (2024) EWHC 112 (KB) an individual who had under Section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 was given permission to amend her appellant’s notice. The appeal had, by mistake, identified the wrong local housing authority. The amendment was to specify the correct authority. The appeal which identified the wrong authority was not a nullity. There was power to include the correct respondent by amendment.

In R ( DF ) v v Essex County Council (2023) EWHC 3330 (Admin) the Court holds, at paras 74/75, that the fact that the Claimant was homeless, for the purposes of Section 175 of the Housing Act 1996, did not automatically mean that she required accommodation under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The Section 20 question entails a “ separate evaluation of a wide range of factors”.

HUSSAIN v NEWHAM LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (2023 ) UKUT 287 ( LC ) concerns the making of a Banning Order under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. Such an Order prohibits a person from letting property or managing tenanted property. The UT says that the FTT was entitled to admit evidence of spent convictions, and to take account of them when considering whether to make the Order. The words in Sections 15 and 16 of the Act “ has been convicted of a banning order offence “ were not to be construed as covering exclusively convictions that were not spent.

The central issue before the Supreme Court is R (Imam) v London Borough of Croydon (2023) UKSC 45, in which Judgment was given on 28 November 2023, was whether, and, if so, in what way, a local authority’s lack of financial or other resources should be taken into consideration when a Court is deciding whether to grant a Mandatory Order against the authority in order to enforce its undoubted statutory duty (paragraph 37) towards a homeless individual under Section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996.

Lord Sales explains that Croydon Council is subject to a public law duty which is immediate, non-deferrable, and not qualified by reference to available resources or otherwise (paragraphs 38 and 39). Read more »

In relation to entitlement to  Housing Benefit, and circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated as occupying a dwelling as his or home, Regulation 7 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 provides at Regulation 7(4) that when a Housing Benefit claimant has been “ required “ to move into temporary accommodation by reason of “ essential repairs “ being carried out at the dwelling normally occupied as his or her home , and is liable to make payment in respect of either, but not both, the dwelling which he or she normally occupies as his or home OR the temporary accommodation he or she shall be treated as occupying as his home the dwelling in respect of which he or she is liable to make payments. In SH v SOUTHWARK LBC ( 2023 ) 8 WLUK 397 the Upper Tribunal clarifies that the test under Regulation 7(4) is an objective one, both as regards what constitutes essential repairs and as regards whether there has been a requirement to move into temporary accommodation. It is not a question of what the individual might regard as essential repairs or what the individual might think was sufficient to require a tenant to move out whilst such works were to be carried out. The evaluation is one that should take account of the claimant’s individual characteristics, including factors such as impairment or vulnerability due to ill health.

In KYLE v COVENTRY CITY COUNCIL (2023) EWCA Civ 1360 the Court of Appeal says at para 42 that (1) there is no need for accommodation to be so bad that a person could not be expected to stay there for another night for there to be homelessness for the purposes of the Housing Act 1996, (2) on the other hand, a person does not have to be entitled to remain in accommodation indefinitely, or for any particular period of time for it to be “ reasonable for him to continue to occupy “ it; (3) neither need he have accommodation which it would be “ reasonable …to continue to occupy” for ever; (4) in general at least Section 175(3) will be satisfied and a person will not be “homeless” if there is accommodation which it would be “ reasonable for him to continue to occupy “over the period which would elapse before the local housing authority re-housed him; (5) the physical characteristics of accommodation will often be of central importance in determining whether it is “ reasonable … to continue to occupy “it; (6) Restrictions affecting the person’s life in , and use of, the accommodation may also be relevant.

The Court of Appeal in GLOBAL 100 LTD v JIMENEZ ( 2023 ) EWCA Civ 1243 holds that parts of former office buildings included HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION under Section 254 of the Housing Act 2004. The buildings were occupied by “ property guardians “. Their “ only use “ of living accommodation was as their main residence.

In BARKING & DAGENHAM LBC v GBADEGESIN (2023) EWHC 2571 ( KB ) the Council was granted a final injunction to secure compliance with Improvement Notices under Sections 11 & 12 of the Housing Act 2004. The remedial works required by the Notices remained outstanding. That was despite the landlord having been convicted pursuant to Section 30 of the Act of failure to comply with the Notices.

In R ( Ahamed ) v Haringey LBC ( 2023 ) EWCA Civ 975 the Court of Appeal considers the relationship between Sections 189B and 193 of the Housing Act 1996. At paragraph 46 Newey LJ says that he would not exclude the “ possibility “ of a person being homeless, and so owed the main housing duty, despite having suitable accommodation available for occupation and a reasonable prospect of retaining it for at least 6 months, but that this is not a likely scenario. TYPICALLY the matters rendering the accommodation potentially suitable for at least 6 months will also “ tend to make “ it such as it would be reasonable to continue to occupy.

Hodge v Folkestone & Hythe District Council (2023) EWCA Civ 896 reaffirms that (1) whether the place which an applicant happens, or happened, to occupy is, or was, “accommodation” for the purposes of Section 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996 is a question of fact for the local housing authority, subject to Wednesbury, and (2) whether it is reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy temporary accommodation is also a question of fact for the authority, subject to Wednesbury.