Birmingham City Council v Ali and others; [2009] UKHL 36; [2009] WLR (D) 221

LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Homeless persons — Accommodation available for occupation — Claimants in occupation not reasonable for them to continue to occupy — Local housing authority leaving them there until better accommodation available — Whether discharging duty — Allocation policy — Whether lawful — Woman in refuge — Whether refuge “accommodation” — Whether “reasonable … to continue to occupy” — Housing Act 1996, ss 175(1)(3), 191(1), 193(2)

Birmingham City Council v Ali and others

Moran v Manchester City Council (Women’s Aid Federation of England and another intervening)

[2009] UKHL 36; [2009] WLR (D) 221

HL(E): Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury: 1 July 2009

Although it had not been reasonable for families to remain in their current accommodation indefinitely, the local housing authority had been entitled to leave them there in the short term, it being a question of fact whether the period was too long, but the authority had not been entitled to rely on its allocation policy to fulfil its duty. It had not been reasonable for a woman to continue to occupy a women’s refuge indefinitely, and she had accordingly remained “homeless” under the Housing Act 1996.

The House of Lords so held in allowing appeals by Birmingham City Council from the Court of Appeal (Ward, Arden and Smith LJJ) [2008] 1 WLR 2305 affirming Collins J and by Sharon Moran from the Court of Appeal (Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Tuckey and Wilson LJJ) [2008] 1 WLR 2387 allowing an appeal by Manchester City Council from Mr Recorder Rigby at Manchester County Court. Collins J had allowed claims for judicial review of the council’s decisions by Abdiladif Mohammed Ali, Abdishakar Aweys, Amina Abdulle, Muhidin Adam, Nimo Sharif and Helena Omar. The recorder had allowed Ms Moran’s appeal from the council’s reviewing officer.

BARONESS HALE and LORD NEUBERGER in a joint opinion said that in the Birmingham case six families had been living in seriously overcrowded accommodation but had been left there for many months or even years until permanent accommodation had been found. In the Manchester case a mother had gone to a women’s refuge because of domestic violence but had been evicted because of her behaviour. The council had decided that she had become homeless intentionally. The council’s approach in the Birmingham case had been that they could discharge their duty under the Act by leaving the families in their existing homes until permanent accommodation could be found. They also relied on their allocation policy, whereby such families were placed in band B. Ss 175(3) and 191(1) of the 1996 Act were looking to the future as well as the present. S 175(3) had been introduced for cases where families might be expected to stay a little longer in cramped accommodation but not for the length of time that they would have to if the local authority did not intervene. Accommodation might be reasonable to occupy for a short period but unreasonable to occupy for a long period. It was a question of fact whether the period was too long. Parliament had not intended that a woman who found temporary shelter in a refuge should no longer be considered homeless. The refuge was a mere staging post until she decided where to go from there. It was unnecessary to decide whether a refuge was “accommodation”. Were it to be the case that the council in the Birmingham case relied on their allocation policy to fulfil their obligations under s 193(2), that was unlawful.

LORD HOPE delivered a short opinion agreeing with Baroness Hale and Lord Neuberger.

LORD SCOTT agreed with Lord Hope, Baroness Hale and Lord Neuberger.

LORD WALKER agreed with Baroness Hale and Lord Neuberger.

Appearances: Ashley Underwood QC and Catherine Rowlands (instructed by Sharpe Pritchard for Chief Legal Officer, Birmingham City Council) for Birmingham City Council; Jan Luba QC and Zia Nabi (instructed by The Community Law Partnership, Birmingham) for the claimants in the first appeal; Jan Luba QC and Adam Fullwood (instructed by Shelter Greater Manchester Housing Centre) for Ms Moran; Clive Freedman QC and Zoe Thompson (instructed by City Solicitor, Manchester City Council) for Manchester City Council; Stephen Knafler and Liz Davies (instructed by Sternberg Reed, Barking) for the Women’s Aid Federation of England, intervening; Martin Chamberlain (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, intervening.

Reported by: Michael Gardner, barrister