Social Housing Case Bulletin – February 2021

Welcome to the February issue of our case law update

Our social housing team are delighted to share the cases from October from the higher jurisdiction courts in England and Wales that are relevant to the affordable housing sector.

We trust that this update will be helpful and we welcome any queries or further help that we can provide by contacting the partners mentioned below.

Keeping abreast of the latest case law is an important aspect of advice to our clients in delivering the highest quality legal services and we trust you will find this a useful update within your business.

Bankole-Jones v Watford Borough Council

[2020] EWHC 3100 Administrative Court

24 November 2020

Housing – Homelessness – Eligibility for assistance

The Appellant challenged the Respondent local authority’s decision that he was homeless and eligible for assistance, but not in priority need. There were four grounds of appeal. The Appellant contended that the Respondent’s review did not fully address, and erroneously assessed, the question of whether he was vulnerable under s.189(1)(c) & (d) of the Housing Act 1996. In addition, the Appellant argued that the Respondent’s conclusion that he could carry out daily living tasks independently contradicted the basis upon which the Appellant had been awarded Personal Independence Payments. The material matters were those relevant to a person’s ability to deal with the consequences of being homeless. The review decision had correctly approached this issue and had considered in some detail the effect of the Appellant’s conditions. There was no error of law. Appeal dismissed.

Bullale v City of Westminster Council

[2020] EWCA Civ 1587 Court of Appeal

25 November 2020

Housing – Homelessness – Settled accommodation

The Appellant challenged a County Court ruling dismissing his appeal against a Respondent local authority review officer’s decision which upheld a finding that the Appellant was intentionally homeless within the meaning of s.191 of the Housing Act 1996. The Respondent had decided that a period of accommodation at a previous property was not settled accommodation capable of breaking the causal link between an earlier intentional homelessness and the current homelessness. The review officer had confirmed that decision. However, the review officer had not considered all the relevant facts to determine whether that the second accommodation was a settled arrangement and not a temporary one. The decision was legally flawed. The decision was quashed and remitted to the Respondent to consider all the relevant facts. Appeal allowed.

Home Group Limited v Fletcher

Case No: G00WH068, West Cumbrian County Court

26 October 2020

Anti-social behaviour – Breach of injunction – Sentencing

The Defendant tenant was subject to the terms of an interim anti-social behaviour injunction. He had breached the injunction on two occasions by hosting gatherings at the property he let from the Claimant, both of which resulted in him having fights and taking part in other disorderly conduct and anti-social behaviour. The Defendant had found his support network harder to access during lockdown and had been drinking heavily. Since the two breaches he had not engaged in any further prohibited behaviour and had made efforts to regulate his life. However, the breaches were serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence of six weeks, suspended for a period of one year.

London Borough of Bromley v Broderick

[2020] EWCA Civ 1522 Court of Appeal

16 November 2020

Local authorities’ powers and duties – Main homelessness duty – Expiration

This appeal concerned the implications of the refusal by the Respondent of an offer of accommodation made by the Appellant London Borough. The Council had notified the Respondent that it regarded the duty which it had owed her under s.193 of the Housing Act 1996 as having ceased as a result of the refusal. The judge held that, where the issue was whether a housing authority’s duty had come to an end because the applicant refused an offer of suitable accommodation, suitability should be determined by reference to the position at the date the offer was made. There was no basis for disputing that the Council’s offer was suitable for the Respondent. Appeal allowed.

Nikolaeva v London Borough of Redbridge

[2020] EWCA Civ 1586 Court of Appeal

27 November 2020

Local authorities’ powers and duties – Main housing duty – Expiration

The Appellant challenged the Respondent’s decision that its main housing duty owed to her, under the Housing Act 1996, had ceased. The case raised important issues of the nature of the “final offer” of accommodation. The Appellant appealed on two grounds, arguing that the Review Decision was based on a finding that she had refused an offer of accommodation, which was irrational and contrary to the evidence. The Appellant also contended that the judge had erred in concluding that there was no requirement to consider whether the accommodation had still been available at the deemed date of the refusal. There was no evidence that the Property had been taken back that day or the Property “would be taken back” at an undefined time in the future. The Review Decision was the only one which could rationally have been reached and should not be set aside. Appeal dismissed.

Rakusen v Jepsen

[2020] UKUT 298 Lands Chamber

11 November 2020

Housing – Rent Repayment Orders (RRO) – Whether RRO may be made against a superior landlord

The issue in this appeal was whether a Rent Repayment Order made under Chapter 4 of Part 2 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 could be made only against the immediate landlord of the tenant. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) had dismissed an application by the Appellant to strike out an application for an RRO made by the Respondents. The Appellant was not the Respondents’ immediate landlord, having let the whole of the flat to a company which then let individual rooms. It was held that the FTT had jurisdiction to make an RRO against any landlord, including a superior landlord, who had committed an offence under Chapter 4. Appeal dismissed.

Sovereign Housing Association v Hawkins

Case No. G00BA315, Bath County Court

19 November 2020

Anti-social behaviour – Breach of injunction – Sentencing

The Defendant was subject to the terms of an anti-social behaviour injunction. He had breached the terms of the injunction for approaching a neighbour with a hammer whilst drunk. The court handed down a custodial sentence of 8 weeks imprisonment, suspended on the basis that the terms of the injunction were adhered to.