Queen’s Bench Division

Published February 21, 2007

Regina (Aweys and Others) v Birmingham City Council

Before Mr Justice Collins

Judgment January 26, 2007

Once an obligation arose for a local authority to provide a homeless person with settled accommodation, the council had to ensure that the homeless person was provided with suitable temporary accommodation pending the provision of that settled accommodation. Existing overcrowded accommodation could never be regarded as suitable.

Mr Justice Collins so held in the Queen’s Bench Division on claims by Mr Abdisharkur Aweys, Ms Amina Abdulle, Mr Muhidin Adam, Mr Abdullahi Mohamed, Ms Nimo Sharif, Mr Abdiladif Mohammed Ali and Ms Helena Omar for judicial review of the manner in which Birmingham City Council had dealt with their homelessness applications.

Mr Zia Nabi for Mr Aweys, Ms Abdulle, Mr Adam, Mr Mohamed and Ms Sharif; Mr Joshua Dubin for Mr Ali; Mr Nicholas Nicol for Ms Omar; Ms Catherine Rowlands for Birmingham. MR JUSTICE COLLINS said that Birmingham City Council maintained an allocation policy under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996, under which it was obliged to have a scheme for determining priorities and the procedure to be followed in allocating housing.

Under that policy it gave priority to those who were homeless and in temporary accommodation, placing them in band A, over those who were homeless at home under section 175(3) of the Housing Act 1996, placing them in band B.

The claimants submitted that the method adopted by the defendant whereby it had dealt with them by applying its allocation policy was unlawful in that it was irrational in the manner in which it applied to those who were homeless at home.

For all except one claimant, whose accommodation had always been unsuitable, their accommodation had initially been suitable but had become overcrowded after they had moved in.

Each claimant had a large family and so required accommodation which had more than three bedrooms. The defendant had accepted that the claimants were homeless because of chronic overcrowding but required them to remain in their overcrowded accommodation waiting for suitable accommodation to become available.

His Lordship said that where a local authority decided that it had to provided settled accommodation to a homeless person, who was not intentionally homeless, the council had to ensure that in the meantime the homeless person was provided with suitable accommodation.

For the homeless at home their existing accommodation could never be regarded as suitable even for a short time.

While the court had to recognise the difficulties which local authorities had in finding suitable accommodation, particularly for large families, and that in some cases families might prefer to remain in unsuitable accommodation for a short time rather than move to temporary accommodation, local authorities had to also recognise that it was a breach of their duty to require families to remain in their unsuitable accommodation.

There had to be discussion leading to agreement and no compulsion.

The length of time before proper accommodation was found should be short. Six weeks, although not a rigid maximum period for all purposes, was a guide to what would be regarded as reasonable. Any further period would need clear justification.

Furthermore, the division in the council’s allocation policy between band A and band B could not be justified, and the defendant was under a duty to give priority to all those who were not intentionally homeless within the meaning of section 193 of the 1996 Act. In that respect the defendant’s policy was unlawful.

The manner in which the defendant had dealt with the claimants’ homelessness applications had therefore been unlawful since it had unlawfully required them to remain in overcrowded accommodation and had applied an unlawful policy as to the priority to be given to their homelessness applications.

Solicitors: Community Law Partnership, Birmingham; Mr Mirza Ahmed, Birmingham.

Times Recommends

• UK legal industry faces loss of 10,000 lawyers
• Curious case of chocolate bunny trademark
• Divorce settlement granted after 22 years