It was not ‘reasonable’ for a refugee to refuse accommodation because the round window in the living room reminded her of her prison cell in Iran, the Supreme Court has held.
Mrs Vida Poshteh, who lives with her son, came to the UK in 2003 as a refugee, having been imprisoned and tortured. She gained indefinite leave to remain in 2009, and applied to Kensington and Chelsea for accommodation as a homeless person. In 2012, she was offered a two-bedroom flat, but refused it on the basis the window provoked memories that would exacerbate her post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and other conditions.
Under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, local housing authorities must provide ‘suitable’ accommodation for a person who is homeless and in priority need. That duty ceases if the applicant refuses a ‘final offer’ of accommodation and it is ‘reasonable’ for them to have accepted the offer.
The council decided she had unreasonably declined the offer, after finding the window was larger and let in more light than the one in her prison cell.
Ruling in Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2017] UKSC 36, the Supreme Court dismissed her appeal, upholding the decisions of the council, county court and Court of Appeal.
Delivering the lead judgment, Lord Carnwath said of the decision-letter of the reviewing office: ‘The length and detail of the decision-letter show that the writer was fully aware of this responsibility. Viewed as a whole, it reads as a conscientious attempt by a hard-pressed housing officer to cover every conceivable issue raised in the case.’
Lord Carnwath also criticised the proliferation of authorities and number of bundles presented in the case.
