De Falco v Crawley Borough Council; Silvestri v Crawley Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE BRIDGE |
| Judgment Date | 12 December 1979 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1979] EWCA Civ J1212-1 |
| Docket Number | 1979 D. No. 2376 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 12 December 1979 |
[1979] EWCA Civ J1212-1
The Master of The Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Bridge and
Sir David Cairns
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
On Appeal from The High Court of Justice
Queen's Bench Division
(Mr. Justice Chapman)
MR. J. MacDONALD, Q.C. and MR. A. BANO (instructed by Messrs. Bates, Wells & Braithwaite) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiffs (Appellants).
MR. A.F. SCRIVENER, Q.C. and MR. G. STOKER (instructed by Messrs. Sharpe Pritchard & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Defendant (Respondent).
Every day we see signs of the advancing tide. This time it is two young families from Italy. They had heard tell of the Common Market. Naturally enough, because it all stemmed from a Treaty made at Rome. They had heard that there was freedom of movement for workers within the Community. They could come to England without let or hindrance. They may have heard, too, that England is a good place for workers. In Italy the word may have got round that in England there are all sorts of benefits to be had whenever you are unemployed. And, best of all, they will look after you if you have nowhere to live. There is a special new statute there which imposes on the local authority a duty to house you. They must either find you a house or put you up in a guest house. "So let's go to England", they say. "That's the place for us".
In that telling I have used a touch of irony, but there is a good deal of truth behind it. You will see it as I recount the story.
COMMUNITY LAW
But, before doing this, I would draw attention to the Community Law. It is set out in Articles 43 to 51 of the Treaty of Rome, and Articles 2 to 18 of the Regulations of the 15th October, 1968. It is well summarised in an explanatory document issued by the Department of the Environment to local authorities. It reads thus:
"Nationals of European Community countries do not require permission to work in the United Kingdom, and, once employed, are subject to the legislation and regulations governing the employment of U.K. nationals… They are entitled to the same treatment as indigenous nationals with regard to pay, working conditions, access tohousing and property, training, social security and trade union rights. They also have the right to be joined by their family and immediate dependants, and these family members in turn have the same rights as the workers themselves".
FIRST, THE DE FALCOS
The De Falcos have lived all their lives in Italy. Their home was in Naples - at 86 Corso Vitto Rio Emanuele, Marano, Napoli. He is aged 27. She is 24. They have a baby son of 11 months old. The husband, Vincenzo De Falco, had been out of work in Italy for over a year. So he decided to bring his wife and baby over to England. They did not speak a word of English, but they had got to know of the Common Market, and that under it there is freedom of movement for workers. They had heard that they were entitled to come to England and seek a job here, so that they could live here indefinitely. Now the wife had a brother, Mr. Morrone, living in Horsham. So they arranged to come and stay with her brother. He lived at 84 Drake Close, Horsham, Sussex. They gave up their home in Italy and came with the baby - and their belongings, lock, stock and barrel - to England. They left Italy on the 22nd February, 1979, and came to stay with her brother. It was a two-bedroomed house. Her brother let them have one room rent free. The husband tried to get work, but did not succeed for about three months. Then he got a job at Gatwick Airport, in the canteen. He earned £64 a week net. His wife got a job as a hospital cleaner at £17 a week net. About this time the brother's wife became pregnant. The brother told the De Falcos that they would have to leave. So they did leave in June 1979, and went to stay with another relation - a brother-in-law - at 26 The Birches, Three Bridges, Crawley. A month or two later, in August, 1979, the brother-in-law gave them a month's notice to quit. He said he had relatives coming from Italy to stay with them. So the De Falcos would have to leave by the 21st September, 1979. At once they determined to take advantage of our new legislation for housing the homeless. As soon as they got notice to quit, on the 21st August, 1979, the wife went along to the office of the Crawley Borough Council. She could not speak English. So her sister-in-law, Mrs. Morrone, went with her and acted as interpreter. The wife asked for accommodation for her husband and herself and their baby from the 21st September, 1979.
Now the Crawley Borough Council were concerned about this request. They were uncertain about people coming from the Common Market. They asked the Department of the Environment, and were told that they had just the self-same rights as true born Englishmen with regard to pay, working conditions, access to housing and property, training, social security and trade union rights.
So the Crawley Borough Council felt that they must treat the De Falco family just the same as if they had come from Yorkshire or any other part of England. On that footing, as soon as the De Falcos were turned out on the 21st September, 1979, the Council were bound to provide accommodation for them. That is clear from the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. That Act in section 3(4) placed a duty on the Council to provide accommodation for a family with young children - if they were homeless. So it was the duty of the Crawley Council to house the De Falcos. There were no Council houses available. Sothe Council did the only thing they could. They put them up at a guest house called the Furzedown Guest House, 11 Brighton Road, Horley. It was near the airport where Mr. De Falco was working. It cost the Council £100 a week. The De Falcos made a contribution of £19.20 a week.
THE SILVESTRIS
The Silvestris are also Italian. He is 25. She is 20. They have two small daughters, aged three years and one year. They first came to England three years ago and stayed here for nearly two years. He then worked at a factory in the Crawley area. They shared a flat with his brother-in-law. But the brother-in-law was given a Council house: and Mr. Silvestri could not afford the flat on his own. So he went back to Italy with his wife and family. That was in September 1973. They lived in Naples and he got work there. He hoped that it would be permanent. But after nine months the work turned out not to be permanent. He has not told the reason. Maybe he got the sack. We do not know. All we do know is that he could not find any other work in Naples. So he decided to come back to England. They were living in Naples in very crowded conditions there, but that was not the reason he left. He left because he could find no other work there. He got in touch with a brotherin-law living in Redhill. He told him that two flats were coming available at No. 14 Gloucester Road, Redhill, and that he might have one of them. So Mr. Silvestri bought the tickets and made arrangements to come over - with his wife and two babies - and all their belongings. But three days before he was due to leave Italy his brother-in-law sent a message that the flats were no longer available. Nevertheless, as they had made all their arrangements, the Silvestris came over. Theyarrived on the 29th June, 1979. They went to stay with various relatives and friends for a few weeks at a time. He obtained work as a solderer. we do not know his wages. I expect they were very good. But they could not stay indefinitely with relatives and friends. So they went to the Crawley Council on the 30th August, 1979, and asked the Council to house them. They could not speak English much. The Council explained to them that, if they became homeless, the Council might be prepared to find them temporary accommodation, but they ought to try to find other accommodation.
On the 29th September, 1979 they were staying with his brother-in-law. He told them to leave. So they went to the Council. The Council by this time knew they were bound to provide accommodation for them. The Council put them up in a guest house at Hope Cottage, 3 Heath Green Lane, Horley Surrey. It cost the Council £60 a week. He contributed £16.70 a week.
THE STATUTORY DUTY
So I have reached the point where the local authority put up these two families in guest houses. That was a very proper thing to do. These two families with small children came into the category of persons who had a "priority need" within section 2(l)(a) of the 1977 Act. They were homeless and had applied for accommodation. So the local authority were under a duty to make appropriate inquiries, see section 3(l)(2), and to house them pending a decision, see section 3(4). But then the Council had to make appropriate inquiries. The object of these was to decide whether these families were "intentionally homeless" or not - see section 3(2). For a great deal depended on it. The statute is not at all easy to follow, but I will try and explain it in simple language.
If the Council are satisfied that the family "became homeless intentionally, they are bound to house them for a short time, but they are not bound to house them forever. They are bound to house them for such time as they consider reasonable: so as to enable them to look for accommodation for themselves - but not indefinitely. After a short time the family must make their own arrangements themselves. That is how I interpret section 4(2) (b) and 4(3) (b).
But if the family became homeless unintentionally, the local authority are bound to house them indefinitely. They must either let them have a Council house, or put them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council, ex parte Hammell
...the discharge of the injunction, Mrs. Hammell nowappeals. 13I deal first with the question of jurisdiction. That point arose in De Falco v. Crawley Council [1980] 1 Q.B. 460. The headnote accurately summarises the effect of the judgments and I begin by reading part of it: "Per curiam. Thoug......
-
Lambert v Ealing London Borough Council
...provided permanent accommodation for him. 19 That simple approach, however, cannot stand. It is contrary to the decision in De Falco v. Crawley Borough Council (1980) 1 Queen's Bench 460. In that case an Italian family gave up their accommodation in Naples. They were E.E.C. nationals who ca......
-
O'Rourke v Camden London Borough Council
...in Cocks v. Thanet District Council [1983] 2 A.C. 286, 294, Lord Bridge cited a passage from his own earlier judgment in De Falco v. Crawley Borough Council [1980] Q.B. 460, 480: "If an ordinary action lies in respect of an alleged breach of duty, it must follow, it seems to me, that in s......
-
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd (No 2)
... ... in 1983 which is embodied in the relevant Council regulations now applicable. The judgment ... ...
-
RESTRAINING A CALL ON A PERFORMANCE BOND: SHOULD ‘FRAUD OR UNCONSCIONABILITY’ BE THE NEW ORTHODOXY?
...is regarded as inapplicable are, inter alia, when: (a) the injunction sought is mandatory in nature (De Falco v Crawley Borough Council[1980] QB 460); (b) the action as a whole is of an interlocutory nature such that the grant or refusal of the injunction would dispose of the matter (Bryans......
-
The Housing and Planning Act 2016: Rewarding the Aspiration of Homeownership?
...December 2015.90 Housing Act 1985, s 86A(5).91 Housing Act 1996, s 169.92 Housing Act 1996, s 182.93 De Falco vCrawley Borough Council [1980] 2 WLR 664, 673.94 HL Deb col 1175 27 April 2016 Baroness Evans of Bowes Park.95 Housing Act 1985, s 81D.96 ibid, s 81D(2).97 ibid, s 107B(3).98 For e......
-
Interlocutory injunctions: american cyanamid comes of age
...case" as an essential pre-condition. 44 Many other conditions have been imposed to safeguard the 40 De Falco v. Crawley Borough Council [1980] Q.B. 460 (since overruled but still good law on this point; R. v. Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council, ex p. Hammell [1989] Q.B. 518......