Awua v Brent London Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 March 1994 |
| Date | 25 March 1994 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Dillon, Lord Justice Leggatt and Lord Justice Henry
Housing - intentional homelessness - council accepted obligation to provide permanent housing
In public sector housing of a homeless person it was relevant to take into account the fact that the local authority had accepted the full obligation under section 65 of the Housing Act 1985 to provide permanent housing for the applicant, even if the accommodation in question was merely a staging post to that end.
It was not to be assumed that whatever accommodation the local authority finally offered as suitable permanent accommodation would necessarily be rejected by the applicant as suitable.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment in allowing an appeal from the decision of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge (The Times July 1, 1993) when he allowed an application for judicial review brought by the applicant, Ms Victoria Awua, against the decision of Brent London Borough Council contained in a letter of November 16, 1992 that she was intentionally homeless within the meaning of Part III of the 1985 Act.
Mr Ashley Underwood for the council; Mr Terence Gallivan for the applicant.
LORD JUSTICE DILLON said that the appeal raised an issue of some importance in the field of law concerned with housing the homeless, as to which the authorities were not all consistent.
The applicant was accepted by Tower Hamlets London Borough Council as unintentionally homeless and in priority need. She was placed in temporary accommodation until suitable permanent accommodation could be found.
When, however, Tower Hamlets offered her permanent accommodation she refused it. She was therefore evicted from the temporary accommodation.
She applied to Brent, with whose area she had some connection at an earlier stage, to be housed. Brent asserted that because she refused suitable accommodation in Tower Hamlets she was to be regarded as intentionally homeless and that Brent did not owe her the full duty under section 65 of the 1985 Act to secure that permanent accommodation became available to her. That assertion was rejected by the deputy judge and Brent appealed.
Mr Underwood submitted, inter alia, that when the applicant was in occupation of the temporary accommodation but was evicted and became homeless it was because of her deliberate refusal or failure to accept...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Aweys and Others) v Birmingham City Council
...the length of time for which the person is expected to remain there. He relies upon the speech of Lord Hoffmann in Reg. v Brent L.B.C., Ex Parte Awua [1996] 1 A.C. 55, 68 A-C: “there is nothing in the Act to say that a local authority cannot take the view that a person can reasonably be exp......
-
Maloba v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
... ... also “produces symmetry between the key concept of homeless and intentional homelessness”, to which Lord Hoffmann referred in R v Brent London Borough Council, ex parte Awua [1996] 1 AC 55 at 67–68. He observed that if accommodation is so bad that leaving it for that reason would ... ...
-
R v Wandsworth London Borough Council and Another, ex parte Wingrove ; R v Same, ex parte Mansoor
...had not been "settled" accommodation and so her eviction from it had not been the cause of her homelessness. The Court of Appeal ( (1994) 26 HLR 539) took a different view: it held that since the London Borough of Tower Hamlets had accepted the full duty under section 65(2), the London Boro......
-
Rikha Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC
...arising under Part III of the Act which seems to me unwarranted." 76 In Fahia, the question, raised but not answered, by Lord Hoffmann in Awua, was in issue, that is whether the occupation of a settled residence is the sole and exclusive method by which the causal link can be broken. Mr Tou......
-
Doing the Government’s Work
...it as ‘implicit in the section’ because ‘the disqualifying stigma’ ofintentional homelessness ‘is very serious for the individual’: (1994) 26 HLR 539, 549.11 The leading practitioners’ textbook on the subject devotes five pages to this notion: C. Hunter & S.McGrath, Homeless Persons (London......