Huzrat v The London Borough of Hounslow

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice Moses,Lord Justice Briggs,Lord Justice Beatson
Judgment Date21 November 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] EWCA Civ 1865
Docket NumberB5/2013/0345
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date21 November 2013

[2013] EWCA Civ 1865

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London WC2A 2LL

Before:

Lord Justice Moses

Lord Justice Beatson

&

Lord Justice Briggs

B5/2013/0345

Between:
Huzrat
Appellant
and
The London Borough of Hounslow
Respondent

Mr Vanttergan (instructed by Polpitiya & co) appeared on behalf of the Appellant

Mr D Broatch (instructed by the London Borough of Hounslow) appeared on behalf of the Respondent

Lord Justice Moses
1

When Mrs Huzrat claimed that she was homeless and eligible for assistance the London Borough of Hounslow was under a full duty to accommodate her, her three children and her husband pursuant to section 193(1) and (2) of the Housing Act 1996 if it was satisfied as to four facts. It had to be satisfied that she was homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the 1996 Act, eligible for assistance — that is someone not falling within the provisions of section 185 of the 1996 Act — had a priority need, as identified in section 189(1) of the 1996 Act and was not satisfied that she had become homeless intentionally within the meaning of section 191.

2

Hounslow was satisfied that she was homeless, was eligible for assistance and had a priority need. But it was also satisfied that she had become homeless intentionally. Accordingly, its duty was confined to that identified in section 190(2)(a) and (b); that is it was required to ensure that such accommodation was available for such a period as it considered would give her a reasonable opportunity of securing accommodation for her and her family's occupation, and secure that she was provided with advice and assistance in any attempts she might make to secure that accommodation became available for her and her family's occupation.

3

Moreover, pending the inquiry into whether she was homeless and as to whether she was homeless intentionally or not, it exercised its powers under section 184 and once she appealed, under section 204(4) to provide temporary accommodation, where I understand she and her family remain.

4

She was entitled to a review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 of the issue as to whether she had become homeless intentionally. This appeal is concerned with the local housing authority's independent officer's conclusion on the review that she was homeless intentionally.

5

Mrs Huzrat says that in reaching that decision Hounslow failed to act in conformity with its duty under section 11 (2) of the Children's Act 2004. It says that in considering the issue as to whether her homelessness was intentional or not it was required to make arrangements for ensuring (a) that its functions were discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and (b) that any services provided by another person pursuant to arrangements made by the person or body in the discharge of its functions are provided having regard to that need.

6

His Honour Judge McDowall at Willesden County Court on 18 January 2013 rejected that argument when considering her appeal, restricted as it was to a point of law. Mrs Huzrat now appeals against that decision.

7

Mrs Huzrat is married. She has two young children born in October 2008 and December 2009 and during the course of the relevant application a third child was born on 5 July 2011. Back in October 2008 she and her family were in occupation of a property at 42 Northumberland Crescent in Middlesex. It was within Hounslow's area. They were tenants of a private landlord. Rent was reduced to reflect Mrs Huzrat's housing benefit, but unfortunately arrears of rent began to accrue and she failed to pay rent in the month of March 2010. Her housing benefit was reduced, leaving what the local housing authority believed to be a modest shortfall from November 2010. The landlord commenced possession proceedings and she and her family were evicted from number 42 on 18 March 2011.

8

She applied for homeless assistance pursuant to Part VII of the 1996 Act on 14 March 2011. As I have said, she was provided with temporary accommodation at 18 Percy Gardens in Isleworth and was interviewed in connection with her claim to eligibility for assistance under Part VII as being homeless and in priority need.

9

The local housing authority reached the decision, pursuant to section 184 of the 1996 Act, that despite the fact that she was eligible, had a local connection and was in priority need, she had become intentionally homeless from the property at which she was evicted at 42 Northumberland Crescent.

10

She requested a review, as she was entitled to do, on 22 December 2011. In that request for a review she spoke as to how extremely stressed the family were at the thoughts of being homeless, how it affected her health and how it was extremely difficult to sleep during the night. She pointed out that her landlord stated that there were no problems with the family and that they had fully met their financial obligations. She went on:

"Furthermore, I have three kids which further makes my situation extremely difficult as my main priority as a mother is to look after them."

11

She then referred to the fact that her husband was self employed but did not receive enough income and she reiterated that she had paid the rent on time.

12

The review was conducted and a decision reached on 24 February 2012. The review considered the question as to whether the rent arrears arose because she had deliberately failed to make regular payment to reduce those arrears.

13

The independent reviewing officer set out the housing background with reference to the amounts of the rent and the amounts of the benefit. He concluded that the failure to pay the rent was deliberate. He took the view that having regard to the income, the expenses and the benefits she received, she could have afforded to make up the shortfall as to the arrears and concluded:

"Your failure to pay your rent can fairly be described as a deliberate act in that you made a choice to spend your money on other things that were not essential, such as repaying a friend."

14

That was a reference to the fact that Mrs Huzrat had said that she had received a loan to pay a deposit and had felt obliged to repay that loan to her friend and that that was one of the reasons why she had been unable to pay the rent. The conclusion was that the omission to pay the rent was deliberate.

15

The reviewing officer also considered the question of whether it was reasonable for the family to continue to occupy number 42; in short, whether they could afford to live there. If in fact they could not afford to live there then the failure to pay the rent would not lead to the conclusion that they were intentionally homeless. If, by reason of the financial circumstances, a family is unable to pay rent and on scrutiny that is the explanation for failure to pay rent and eviction, then the conclusion will be that it was not reasonable to continue to occupy those premises, and that the tennants were not intentionally homeless within the meaning of section 191. That point is illustrated by the relevant Code of Guidance, paragraph 11.18:

"Where an applicant has lost his home because of rent or mortgage arrears resulting from significant financial difficulties and the applicant was genuinely unable to keep up the rent or mortgage payments even after claiming benefits and no further financial help was available then the homelessness will not be regarded as deliberate."

16

The reviewing officer considered the income and expenditure from information provided by Mrs Huzrat. He said at paragraph 31:

"You have suggested that you could not afford the shortfall of approximately £71.50 in rent every four weeks that occurred after October 2010. Your case worker was satisfied that you could and this must be correct. Based on all records of your income and your own statements of your expenditure this small shortfall was clearly and comfortably affordable. Even by your own income expenditure statement, the income aspect of which now appears inaccurate, your expenditure could comfortably have been reduced by cutting out obvious non-essential expenditure, such as £80 pocket money for children aged 1 and 2, and reducing expenditure on clothing from an excessive £50 to £30. A more robust scrutiny of the necessity of your expenditure would also reveal that you could have significantly reduced your expenditure in a number of other ways to make your rent affordable. Your decision to pay to a friend money that was provided to you from public finances specifically for your rent was also a non-essential expense… in summary your actual income was sufficient to maintain your stated expenditure at the time and pay your rent and in addition you could have comfortably reduced your expenditure significantly."

17

The conclusion, therefore, was that it was reasonable for them to continue to occupy the premises.

18

It is of note that the review concluded with specific references to the children, referring the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • R BG v The Chief Constable of the West Midlands Constabulary (1st Defendant) Birmingham City Council (2nd Defendant)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • December 23, 2014
    ...(Admin), at paragraph 51), and it " provides no warrant for rewriting" other statutory provisions ( e.g.Housing Act 1996: Huzrat v the London Borough of Hounslow [2013] EWCA Civ 1865). In a passage of his judgment in Castle that has particular relevance to the present application, Pitchford......
  • Ms Maryam Mohamoud v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (First Respondent)
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • July 21, 2015
    ...to identify the particular statutory function to which the section 11(2) duty is said to apply, and the appropriate context: see Huzrat v Hounslow LBC [2013] EWCA Civ 1865; [2014] HLR 17. The relevant function in Huzrat was a determination made by the defendant local authority under sectio......
  • Nzolameso v Westminster City Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • April 2, 2015
    ...actions are deliberate for the purpose of deciding whether she is intentionally homeless. As Moses LJ pointed out in Huzrat v Hounslow London Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 1865, para 26: "The statutory questions are clear; was the action or omission in question deliberate? The answer to ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT