Denton v Southwark LBC
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lady Justice Arden,Lord Justice Dyson,Lord Justice Mummery |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWCA Civ 623 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B5/2006/2285 |
| Date | 04 July 2007 |
[2007] EWCA Civ 623
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CLERKENWELL &
SHOREDITCH COUNTY COURT
HHJ COTRAN
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Mummery
Lady Justice Arden and
Lord Justice Dyson
Case No: B5/2006/2285
Mr Nicholas Grundy (instructed by Southwark Legal Services) for the Appellant
Mr Sean Pettit (instructed by Messrs AP Law) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 13 June 2007
Mr Leon Denton lived with his mother, Mrs Salmon, at 12C Brunswick Park, Camberwell, London SE5 7RH all his life until 2005. He was then twenty years old. His mother asked him to leave because he behaved badly in the home and she could no longer control him. Mr Denton then lived briefly with his sister but she likewise asked him to leave after ten months. He was then homeless. He went to his local housing authority, the London Borough of Southwark (which I shall call “Southwark”). Successive Housing Acts have imposed on local authorities the duty in certain circumstances to provide housing for people who are homeless, but in general local authorities are not obliged to provide accommodation for a person who has become homeless “intentionally” as that term is defined by s 191 of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended) (“HA 1996”) (see para. 3 below). Southwark took the view that Mr Denton fell within this definition because of his bad behaviour at his mother's home and moreover because it would have been reasonable for Mr Denton to continue to occupy the accommodation which had previously been provided by his mother. She would have been willing to continue to provide a home for him if his bad behaviour had ceased. On appeal, the judge quashed Southwark's decision, holding that it had not taken into account the relationship between mother and son and the possibility that it had already broken down by then. Southwark appeals, and the point of principle for this court is whether Southwark erred in law in its approach to the situation where a young person becomes homeless in this way.
In my judgment, for the reasons given below:
i) To determine whether a person is within the statutory definition of intentional homelessness, all the circumstances of the case must be considered.
ii) One of those circumstances is the fact that the previous home was a family home. There are significant differences between the family home and rented accommodation.
iii) Nonetheless, people living together must show each other respect and this necessarily involves complying with any reasonable requests which one person makes to another. In this case, Mrs Salmon reasonably expected Mr Denton to behave so as not to cause a nuisance to her or others and he did not do so. The cause of his being asked to leave was his bad behaviour.
iv) In determining whether it is reasonable for a person to have continued to occupy his previous home, the court must disregard the deliberate conduct or course of conduct that led him to leave that home.
v) It is for the authority to decide what inquiries to make and the court will not intervene unless the decision of the local authority not to make further inquiries is perverse. It cannot be said that Southwark's approach in this case failed to comply with public law principles.
Meaning of intentional homelessness
S 191 of the HA 1996 deals with the meaning of “intentional homelessness” and in material part it provides as follows:
“(1) A person becomes homeless intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy.”
S 191(1) contains four requirements. First, the applicant for housing must have deliberately acted or omitted to act. S 191(2) goes on to provide that an act or omission in good faith on the part of a person who was unaware of any relevant fact is not to be treated as deliberate. Secondly, his actions or omissions must have caused him to cease to occupy accommodation. Thirdly, that accommodation must have been available for his occupation. Fourthly, it must have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy that accommodation. It does not have to be shown that it was reasonable for him to leave the accommodation (see per Woolf J in R v Wandsworth LB ex parte Nimako-Boateng (1983) 11 HLR 98).
S 177 of the HA 1996 is relevant to the fourth requirement and in part to this case. Ss(1) deals with the situation where a person's continued occupation is likely to lead to violence. We are not concerned with that subsection and accordingly I will not summarise it. Ss (2) provides that, in determining whether it would be or would have been reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation, the local authority may have regard to the general circumstances prevailing in relation to housing in its district. Ss (3) enables the Secretary of State to make orders specifying other circumstances in which it is to be regarded as reasonable or not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation or other matters to be taken into account in determining whether it would be or would have been reasonable for a person to continue occupation. We have not been taken to any order made under this subsection.
How intentional homelessness is determined
I should summarise very briefly the procedure for determining applications for housing. It falls to the local housing authority to make a decision in the first instance as to whether an applicant for housing has become homeless intentionally. In reaching that decision, it must have regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State and under that guidance the local housing authority has to give “careful consideration to the circumstances of the applicant and the household” (Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (2002) para. 7.15, now para. 11.22 of the Homelessness Code (2006)). The local authority is under a statutory duty to make such enquiries as are necessary to satisfy itself as to whether any, and if so what, duty is owed to the applicant (S 184 of the HA 1996, and see generally R v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea, ex parte Bayani (1990) 22 HLR 406). The inquiries will not necessarily be limited to matters raised by the applicant. If the local authority decides that a person has become homeless intentionally, the applicant has the right to have that decision reviewed by the local authority (s 202 of the HA 1996). If a person is dissatisfied with the decision on review under s 202, he may appeal, on a point of law only, to the county court. From there he can appeal, with permission, to this court.
The essential facts
I turn now to the factual background. This is set out in detail in the judgment of the judge, but for the purposes of this appeal it is enough to take the summary provided by Mr Pettit, who appears for Mr Denton:
“ 1. Leon Denton is 22 years old (DOB 21. 2.1985). He has severe learning difficulties and is unable to read or write. He is currently being offered educational support from a charity called YESS (Youth Education and Support Services). He also suffers from depression.
2. From his birth until around May 2005, Leon Denton lived with his mother, Mrs Salmon, and his brother at the family home at 12 Brunswick Park, London. Mrs Salmon also suffers from depression as well as agoraphobia. She is registered disabled.
3. Mrs Salmon told Leon Denton to quit her home in around May 2005, after which he went to live with his sister at 41 Adamshill Road. SE26. His sister asked him to leave her home in February 2006 at which time he made his application to Southwark for assistance as a homeless person.
4. This was not the first time Mrs Salmon had asked Leon Denton to leave. In her (undated) Notice to Quit letter, she states “I have asked him to leave. I did this before in February 2004. It was not the first time. My daughter took him. His brother tried for them to be put into hostels and nothing could be done …”
5. Leon D enton was interviewed by Southwark's Homeless Persons' Unit on the 6th of March 2006.
6. By a letter dated the 13th of March 2006, Southwark communicated its decision that it found Leon Denton to be eligible, homeless and in priority need, but that it found him to have become homeless intentionally.
7. Leon D enton's solicitor made a request for a review of this decision in a letter dated the 3rd of May 2006. In that letter, further representations were made, in particular it was said that there had been a breakdown in the relationship between Leon Denton and his mother and that it was not reasonable to expect a 21 year old always to obey his mother.”
Mr Denton exercised his right under s 202 of the HA 1996. On 19 June 2006, Mr Richard Michael, reviews manager for Southwark, communicated his decision on review. He upheld Southwark's decision and he described the matters that he had considered. He starts with setting out the points Mr Denton's solicitors had raised:
“Your solicitors have raised the following points for me to take into account when conducting the review:
They state that your last settled accommodation should be treated as being your sister's address.
They state that you were living at your sister's address for about 10 months prior to approaching the Council for assistance.
They state that it is not a reasonable expectation for a 21 year old to be expected to obey his mother and that your failure to do so cannot therefore lead to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Osei v Southwark LBC
...of intentional homelessness and the manner in which intentional homelessness is determined by citation from my recent judgment in Denton v Southwark [2007] EWCA Civ 623: “Meaning of intentional homelessness 3. S 191 of the HA 1996 deals with the meaning of “intentional homelessness” and in ......
-
London Borough of Wandsworth v NJ
...and thereby resolve his arrears problem going forward. None of your representations on Mr Noel's behalf have addressed this." 18 In Denton v Southwark LBC [2007] EWCA Civ 623, 2008 [HLR] 11, a young man had been asked to leave his mother's home because of his unacceptable behaviour. She wo......
-
Chishimba v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
...continued to occupy the flat. 17 The judge in the court below did address the question. He relied on the decision of this court in Denton v Southwark LBC [2007] EWCA Civ 623, [2008] HLR 11. That was a case in which a young man had been asked to leave his mother's home because of his unacce......
-
Melvilina Gavin v Birmingham City Council
...respite care to cover the period of the works. The judge had therefore been right to hold that the temporal approach adopted in Denton v Southwark LBC [2008] HLR 11 ("the Denton case") was as relevant to section 175(3) as it was to section 191(1) of the 1996 Act in relation to intentional h......