Godson v London Borough of Enfield
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Lewison,Lord Justice Newey |
| Judgment Date | 22 March 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] EWCA Civ 486 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B5/2018/1732 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 22 March 2019 |
[2019] EWCA Civ 486
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT
HHJ Roberts
E40CL0005
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Lewison
and
Lord Justice Newey
Case No: B5/2018/1732
Mr Stephen Godson the Appellant
Mr David Lintott (instructed by Legal Services, Enfield Council) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 14 March 2019
Approved Judgment
The issues
The principal issues on this appeal are:
i) If a local housing authority purports to discharge its duty to a homeless person such as to terminate that duty, and the homeless person does not appeal against an unsuccessful review of that decision; is he entitled to challenge the lawfulness of that review decision on a subsequent application for assistance as a homeless person?
ii) If so, was the housing authority entitled to terminate its duty in the manner in which it purported to do?
iii) If the termination of the housing duty and the homeless person's consequent eviction was caused by the homeless person's refusal of an offer of temporary accommodation, is he thereby rendered intentionally homeless?
The facts
Mr Godson applied to Enfield LBC for assistance with homelessness on 12 July 2012. Enfield provided him with emergency accommodation at 21c Bury Street on the same day, while it investigated his claim. Mr Godson was entitled to live there by virtue of a licence granted to him by Enfield. On 28 August 2012 it accepted that it owed Mr Godson the full housing duty described in section 193 of the Housing Act 1996. On 25 July 2013 Enfield made him an offer of a tenancy at 28B Church Street. He was told by Enfield that if he refused, the consequence would be that Enfield's housing duty under that section would cease. Despite that, Mr Godson refused the offer of the tenancy. As a result of that refusal, Enfield purported to terminate its duty to Mr Godson on 5 August 2013. Mr Godson sought a review of that decision. On 4 October 2013 the review decision confirmed the original decision. Mr Godson could have appealed to the county court against the review decision; but he did not. On 21 January 2014 Mr Godson and his family were evicted from 21c Bury Road.
On the night of his eviction, Mr Godson found bed and breakfast accommodation for himself and his family at Railway Inn, which was also in the London Borough of Enfield. They continued to live in that accommodation until 2016 when he made another application to Enfield for assistance. Enfield originally took the view that the accommodation at Railway Inn was suitable, and therefore that Mr Godson was not homeless; but later accepted that it was not. So on 9 August 2016, Mr Godson was once again provided with emergency accommodation at 55B Friern Barnet Road, while Enfield investigated the merits of his claim.
On 15 September 2017 Enfield decided that Mr Godson was intentionally homeless. He requested a review of that decision. The review decision was issued on 29 November 2017 and upheld the original decision.
Mr Godson appealed against that decision to the county court. But on 13 July 2018 HHJ Roberts dismissed the appeal. This, therefore, is a second appeal. In an appeal of this nature our focus must be on the original decision: that is to say the review decision under challenge, rather than on the judge's reasons for dismissing the first appeal.
Statutory framework
The statutory provisions relating to homelessness have gone through a number of iterations since they first made their appearance in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. This must be borne in mind in considering authorities decided on previous versions of the statutory code.
The statutory framework at the time of Enfield's decision was contained in Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, as amended by the Localism Act 2011; but before its further amendment by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. The duties owed to the homeless are set out in Part 7. Section 175 provided, so far as material:
“(1) A person is homeless if he has no accommodation available for his occupation, in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, which he—
(a) is entitled to occupy by virtue of an interest in it or by virtue of an order of a court,
(b) has an express or implied licence to occupy, or
(c) occupies as a residence by virtue of any enactment or rule of law giving him the right to remain in occupation or restricting the right of another person to recover possession.
…
(3) A person shall not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy.”
The emergency accommodation that Enfield provided at 21c Bury Street was originally provided pursuant to the duty under section 188; as is the accommodation at 55B Friern Barnet Road. Section 188 provided:
“(1) If the local housing authority have reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need, they must secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation.”
The duty under section 188 came to an end “when the authority's decision is notified to the applicant”, even if he requested a review of the decision. But thereafter the authority had the power (as opposed to the duty) to secure accommodation pending the review: section 188 (3).
As I have said, back in 2012 Enfield accepted that it owed Mr Godson the full housing duty under section 193 of the 1996 Act. It provided, so far as material:
“(1) This section applies where the local housing authority are satisfied that an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need, and are not satisfied that he became homeless intentionally.
(2) Unless the authority refer the application to another local housing authority (see section 198), they shall secure that accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant.
(3) The authority are subject to the duty under this section until it ceases by virtue of any of the following provisions of this section.”
Whether the authority is discharging its duty under section 188 or its duty under section 193, the accommodation provided must be “suitable”: section 206.
Section 193 provided for a number of ways in which the authority's duty ceased. It ceased, for example, if the applicant ceased to be eligible for assistance. One specific way in which the duty would cease was contained in section 193 (5) which provided:
“(5) The local housing authority shall cease to be subject to the duty under this section if—
(a) the applicant, having been informed by the authority of the possible consequence of refusal or acceptance and of the right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation, refuses an offer of accommodation which the authority are satisfied is suitable for the applicant,
(b) that offer of accommodation is not an offer of accommodation under Part 6 or a private rented sector offer, and
(c) the authority notify the applicant that they regard themselves as ceasing to be subject to the duty under this section.”
I should explain that accommodation under Part 6 is, in effect, the grant of a secure tenancy of council accommodation; and a private rented sector offer is the offer of an assured shorthold tenancy for a term of at least 12 months. Section 193 (5) applies to offers of accommodation which are not those kinds of offer. Clearly, then, section 193 (5) is dealing with offers of accommodation falling short of a final offer or a private rented sector offer. Section 193 (6) provides for other ways in which the duty may cease. These include acceptance of permanent council accommodation under Part 6, or an assured tenancy (other than an assured shorthold tenancy). But under section 193 (6) (b) the duty also ceases if the applicant:
“… becomes homeless intentionally from the accommodation made available for his occupation.”
Section 193 (9) provided:
“A person who ceases to be owed the duty under this section may make a fresh application to the authority for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation.”
It will be seen that one of the conditions that triggers the full housing duty is that the authority is not satisfied that the applicant became homeless intentionally. Intentional homelessness was dealt with by section 191. It provided:
“(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.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) an act or omission in good faith on the part of a person who was unaware of any relevant fact shall not be treated as deliberate.”
So in 2012 Enfield were not satisfied that Mr Godson was intentionally homeless; but in 2017 they were. I will examine in due course the reasons for that change.
If a housing authority makes a decision adverse to an applicant, he has the right to request a review of the decision. Section 202 (1) (b) confers a right to a review of a decision as to what duty (if any) is owed to him under sections 190 to 193 and 195 and 196. Section 202 (1A) provided:
“An applicant who is offered accommodation as mentioned in section 193(5), ( 7) or (7AA) may under subsection (1)(f) or (as the case may be) (g) request a review of the suitability of the accommodation offered to him whether or not he has accepted the offer.”
But section 202 (2) provided:
“There is no right to request a review of the decision reached on an earlier review.”
The review decision under challenge
The essence of the reviewing officer's reasoning was this:
i) At the time when Mr Godson was offered accommodation at 28B Church Street, he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial