Housing Tenure in UK Law

First one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter—in which case a prima facie duty of care arises.

Clearly, however, what is regarded as suitable for discharging the interim duty may be rather different from what is regarded as suitable for discharging the more open-ended duty in section 193(2); but what is suitable for discharging the "full" duty in section 193(2) does not have to be long life accommodation with security of tenure such as would arise if the family were allocated the tenancy of a council house under the council's allocation policy determined in accordance with Part 6 of the 1996 Act.

It does not follow that, because that point has not yet been reached, the accommodation is "suitable" for the family within the meaning of section 206(1). What is suitable for occupation in the short term may not be suitable for occupation in the medium term, and what is suitable for occupation in the medium term may not be suitable for occupation in the longer term. Suitability for the purpose of section 193(2) does not imply permanence or security of tenure.

The letting in each case was of a house comprising more dwellings than one. But I agree with the county court judge in thinking that Parliament when it enacted Section 1 (1) used the singular diliberately, and in this instance did not intend the singular to include the plural. The policy of the Rent Acts was and is to protect the tenant in his home, whether the threat be to extorta premium for the grant or renewal of his tenancy, to increase his rent, or to evict him.

Thus, the Council must ask itself whether Mr Pereira is, when homeless, less able to fend for himself than an ordinary homeless person so that injury or detriment to him will result when a less vulnerable man would be able to cope without harmful effects. It must appear that his inability to fend for himself whilst homeless will result in injury or detriment to him which would not be suffered by an ordinary homeless person who was able to cope.

Such an outcome is clearly contemplated by government policy in the NPPF. It will always be for the decision-maker to judge, in the particular circumstances of the case in hand, how much weight should be given to conflict with policies for the supply of housing that are out-of-date.