:: Court of Appeal ::
Published February 27, 2oo8. Regina
Published February 27, 2oo8. Regina
(Aweys and Others) v Birmingham City Council.
Before Lord Justice Ward, Lady Justice Arden,
Before Lord Justice Ward, Lady Justice Arden,
and Lady Justice Smith
Judgment February 7, 2oo8.
<>
A housing authority acted unlawfully
when persons unintentionally homeless
and in priority need, but unsuitably
accommodated rather than on the
streets, were left in the same accommo-
dation pending permanent re-housing.
<>
The Court of Appeal so stated when dis-
missing the appeal by Birmingham City
Council from declarations by Mr. Justice
Collins, ([2007] EWHC 52 (Adim)) that:
(i) the housing authority was in breach
of its duty to secure suitable accommo-
dation for claimants, Abdishakur Aweys,
Abdiladif Mohammed Ali, Amina Abdulle,
Muhidin Adam, Nimo Sharif, and Helena
Omar, and (ii) its allocations policy
was unlawful.
Judgment February 7, 2oo8.
<>
A housing authority acted unlawfully
when persons unintentionally homeless
and in priority need, but unsuitably
accommodated rather than on the
streets, were left in the same accommo-
dation pending permanent re-housing.
<>
The Court of Appeal so stated when dis-
missing the appeal by Birmingham City
Council from declarations by Mr. Justice
Collins, ([2007] EWHC 52 (Adim)) that:
(i) the housing authority was in breach
of its duty to secure suitable accommo-
dation for claimants, Abdishakur Aweys,
Abdiladif Mohammed Ali, Amina Abdulle,
Muhidin Adam, Nimo Sharif, and Helena
Omar, and (ii) its allocations policy
was unlawful.
<>
Mr. Jan Luba, QC and Mr. Zia Nabi
for the claimants; Mr. Ashley Under-
Wood, QC and Ms. Catherine Rowlands
for the council.
<>
LORD JUSTICE WARD said that the
housing authority decided to leave
at home those who might be called
"homeless at home," not the "street
homeless," until something better
turned up, and its allocations
policy gave preference to the street
homeless. The appeal concerned the
main duty to homeless people with
priority need, eligible for assist-
ance, and who were not homeless
intentionally, governed by section
193 of the Housing Act 1996.
Where the claimants' families were
found homeless because they lived
in overcrowded accommodation was
suitable for their occupation.
Asking whether that duty, under
section 193(2), was discharged by
leaving a homeless family in its
current premises which would not
be reasonable for it to occupy,
the answer was "No." The words
in section 193(3) replicated the
words in section 175(1) and
"accommodation available for
occupation" had to bear the same
meaning in both sections.
Thus if the premises were not
"accommodation" for section 175(3)
purposes, in determining whether
the claimants were homeless, they
could not be "accommodation" for
section 193(2) purposes for discharg-
Mr. Jan Luba, QC and Mr. Zia Nabi
for the claimants; Mr. Ashley Under-
Wood, QC and Ms. Catherine Rowlands
for the council.
<>
LORD JUSTICE WARD said that the
housing authority decided to leave
at home those who might be called
"homeless at home," not the "street
homeless," until something better
turned up, and its allocations
policy gave preference to the street
homeless. The appeal concerned the
main duty to homeless people with
priority need, eligible for assist-
ance, and who were not homeless
intentionally, governed by section
193 of the Housing Act 1996.
Where the claimants' families were
found homeless because they lived
in overcrowded accommodation was
suitable for their occupation.
Asking whether that duty, under
section 193(2), was discharged by
leaving a homeless family in its
current premises which would not
be reasonable for it to occupy,
the answer was "No." The words
in section 193(3) replicated the
words in section 175(1) and
"accommodation available for
occupation" had to bear the same
meaning in both sections.
Thus if the premises were not
"accommodation" for section 175(3)
purposes, in determining whether
the claimants were homeless, they
could not be "accommodation" for
section 193(2) purposes for discharg-
ing the obligation there imposed.
The housing authority was there-
fore in breach of its main duty if it
The housing authority was there-
fore in breach of its main duty if it
did no more than leave a homeless
family at home.
family at home.
<>
Turning to the allocations scheme:
those homeless at home ought to have
been placed in temporary accommodation,
just as the street homeless had been;
and there was no justification for
having the homeless in different
Turning to the allocations scheme:
those homeless at home ought to have
been placed in temporary accommodation,
just as the street homeless had been;
and there was no justification for
having the homeless in different
bands, as had been the case.
<>
Lady Justice Arden gave a judgment
concurring in the result and Lady
Justice Smith agreed with both.
Solicitors: Community Law Partnership.
Birmingham; Mr. Mirza Ahmad, Birmingham.
<>
Lady Justice Arden gave a judgment
concurring in the result and Lady
Justice Smith agreed with both.
Solicitors: Community Law Partnership.
Birmingham; Mr. Mirza Ahmad, Birmingham.
<>
Source: The Times. Feb. 27th, 2oo8.
Law Report. Register p. 67.
Your's, Uncle Monty.
+Mothering Sunday, 2oo8.
Source: The Times. Feb. 27th, 2oo8.
Law Report. Register p. 67.
Your's, Uncle Monty.
+Mothering Sunday, 2oo8.
o o o o o o
No comments:
Post a Comment