Landmark case on homelessness obligations

The Supreme Court has quashed Westminster Council’s decision to house a mother of five 50 miles away from her family.

The landmark ruling means all local authorities will need to urgently review their policies and publish fresh guidance, according to Hodge, Jones & Allen (HJA), who acted for the mother. HJA said local authorities should have a policy for procuring sufficient units of temporary accommodation to meet anticipated demand, and a publicly available policy for allocating units to individual homeless households.

The appeal case, Titina Nzolameso v City of Westminster Council [2015] UKSC 22, arose after a mother who was made homeless when Westminster Council ceased to provide temporary accommodation then refused to be re-housed 50 miles away in Milton Keynes. She argued that the council failed to examine all the available housing in the borough and nearer to the borough when it made its decision and therefore it was unlawful.

Giving judgment, Lady Hale said: “There is little to suggest that serious consideration was given to the authority’s obligations before the decision was taken to offer the property in Bletchley. 

“At that stage, the temporary lettings team knew little more than what was on the homelessness application form. This did not ask any questions aimed at assessing how practicable it would be for the family to move out of the area. 

“Nor were any inquiries made to see whether school places would be available in Bletchley and what the appellant’s particular medical conditions required…There was no indication of the accommodation available in Westminster and why that had not been offered to her. There was no indication of the accommodation available near to Westminster, or even in the whole of Greater London, and why that had not been offered to her. 

“There was, indeed, no indication that the reviewing officer had recognised that, if it was not reasonably practicable to offer accommodation in Westminster, there was an obligation to offer it as close by as possible.”

The case centred on whether the accommodation offered was “suitable” under s 11 of the Children Act 2004. The court said a local authority must have regard to the need to promote, as well as to safeguard, the interests of children when deciding whether accommodation is suitable.

Jayesh Kunwardia of HJA says: “Westminster, like other councils, is under great financial pressure and I would urge politicians on the campaign trail to take note and think long and hard about council and social housing funding; budget cuts will not be tolerated by the courts as an excuse to move homeless families miles away from their friends and support networks. The court has issued very clear guidance [here] for local authorities.”