Kaltun Bullale v City of Westminster Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Bean,Lord Justice Lewis,Lady Justice King |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWCA Civ 1587 |
| Date | 25 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B5/2020/0028 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
[2020] EWCA Civ 1587
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE MAYOR'S AND CITY OF LONDON COURT
HHJ FREELAND QC
Case No. F40CL213
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Bean
Lady Justice King
and
Lord Justice Lewis
Case No: B5/2020/0028
Ms Liz Davies and Mr Nick Bano (instructed by Gillian Radford & Co Solicitors) for the Appellant
Mr Ian Peacock and Ms Anneli Robins (instructed by City of Westminster Legal Services) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 12 November 2020
APPROVED JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal against a decision of HHJ Freeland QC sitting in the County Court at the Mayor's and City of London Court on 12 December 2019 whereby he dismissed an appeal against a decision of a review officer of the respondent, the City of Westminster, dated 23 August 2019. The review officer upheld a decision of 18 June 2019 that the appellant was intentionally homeless within the meaning of section 191 of the Housing Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”).
In brief, the appellant was provided by a local authority with temporary accommodation at Seagrove Hostel in November 2015 pursuant to the duties imposed by the 1996 Act. The appellant was offered suitable accommodation but refused it. The appellant was required to vacate Seagrove Hostel in January 2016.
The appellant and her three daughters occupied a one-room studio flat at Bravington Road, London from 19 September 2016 until November 2018 at which date the landlord recovered possession. The appellant applied to the respondent for assistance under Part VII of the 1996 Act as she was homeless.
The respondent decided that the appellant had become intentionally homeless when she left Seagrove Hostel in January 2016. It also decided that the period of accommodation at Bravington Road was not settled accommodation capable of breaking the causal connection between the earlier intentional homelessness in 2016 and the homelessness that arose in November 2018. A review officer confirmed that decision. The sole issue is whether the respondent's review officer erred in law in reaching that decision.
THE FACTS
The appellant's household consists of herself and her three daughters now aged 26, 21 and 17. The family had lived in private rented accommodation in Fulham. They became homeless in November 2015 when the landlord recovered possession of the property in order to sell it.
The local authority, the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (“Hammersmith and Fulham”) provided the appellant and her family with temporary accommodation at Seagrove Hostel pursuant to its duties under the 1996 Act. It offered her suitable accommodation in Barking in east London but the appellant declined to accept that accommodation. The authority's duty to secure accommodation for the appellant therefore came to an end by reason of section 193(5) of the 1996 Act. In January 2016, the appellant was required to leave Seagrove Hostel.
The appellant spent a few months living with friends. On 19 September 2016, she was granted an assured shorthold tenancy by a private landlord of Flat 7 Bravington Road in London (which was in the area of Westminster City Council). The term was for 1 year at a rent of £302.33 a week. The property comprised a single room, with a kitchen area, and containing bunk beds and a mattress. There was a toilet and shower room shared with other residents (there being 10 such flats at the property). The appellant lived there initially with her two younger daughters and was joined by her eldest daughter. Hammersmith and Fulham provided financial assistance to pay the deposit. The rent was paid from housing benefit and discretionary payments made by the local authority.
On 30 September 2016, the appellant went to the respondent's housing department and asked for assistance because she was living in a bedsit. She explained that she had been living in Seagrove Hostel but had been evicted when she refused alternative accommodation in Barking. She was advised that it was not in her best interests to make an application for assistance under the homelessness legislation because she had refused an offer of suitable accommodation previously. She was also advised that she would not be eligible to register for housing via the housing register as she had not been resident in the respondent's area for three years.
On 13 October 2016, the appellant signed a tenancy agreement for Flat 9, Bravington Road. That agreement was to last until 18 September 2017 with a rent of £302.33 a week. It was again a single room, with a kitchen area, but was larger than Flat 7. There was a toilet and shower room used only by the appellant and her family. The rent was paid, as before, from housing benefit and discretionary payments. The decision letter refers to Flat 7 but, in fact, from 13 October 2016 the appellant and her three daughters occupied Flat 9.
The appellant contends that the landlord knew at the outset that the flat would be occupied by her and her three daughters. The review officer in her decision accepted that. There is a letter dated 13 February 2017 from the director of the landlord stating that the property had been let on the understanding that the appellant and one daughter only would live there. The letter stated that the appellant and her three daughters now lived there and the property had become severely overcrowded. The letter said either two daughters would have to leave or the premises would have to be vacated. We were told a notice seeking possession was served in June 2017. In any event, the landlord did not seek to recover the property at that stage. The appellant and her three daughters continued to live there. The tenancy continued as a periodic tenancy after the end of the agreed term.
In February 2018, the landlord served notice seeking possession. In May 2018, he issued proceedings in the county court seeking possession. In November 2018, a possession order was granted and the appellant and her daughters had to leave Flat 9. They had been in Flat 9 for two years and one month and had spent a further month in Flat 7 before that.
The appellant applied for assistance to the respondent under Part VII of the 1996 Act. By letter dated 18 June 2019, the respondent decided that the appellant had become intentionally homeless in 2016. That occurred when the appellant ceased to be able to occupy the accommodation at Seagrove Hostel because she refused to accept an offer of suitable accommodation. The respondent decided that the accommodation at Flat 7 (in fact Flat 9) Bravington Road was not settled accommodation as it was overcrowded and could not be seen as suitable.
The appellant requested a review of that decision under section 202 of the 1996 Act. Representations were made on her behalf by solicitors. The review officer confirmed the original decision. That is the decision under challenge. The material parts provide as follows:
“8. On the 18 th June 2019, Ms Bullale application was rejected on the grounds that she was intentionally homeless, following her eviction from 33 Seagrove Lodge, Seagrove Road, London SE1 1RP. Ms Bullale requested a review of this decision and you have made submissions in support of the review.
“9. Within your submissions you have argued that Ms Bullale last settled address was Flat 7, 180 Bravington Road, London W9. You state that Ms Bullale was assisted by Hammersmith and Fulham Council in paying for the deposit for the above property. You state Hammersmith and Fulham council were aware of the size of the property, and the landlord knew the household composition. You state that Ms Bullale initially moved into the property with her youngest daughter, and the older two daughters joined her in the property.
“10. You argue that Flat 7, 180 Bravington Road, London W9 was Ms Bullale last settled address as it was reasonable for her to occupy with her family.
“11. I can confirm that I have also had regard to the case of Haile v Waltham Forest [2015] UKSC 34 where the Supreme Court held that the decision as to whether an applicant is intentionally homeless depends on the cause of the homelessness existing at the date of the review decision. The court also held that a later event constituting an involuntary cause of homelessness can be regarded as superseding the applicant's earlier deliberate conduct, where in view of the later event it cannot reasonably be said that, but for the applicant's deliberate conduct, he or she would not have become homeless.
“12. I have considered your submissions, and I am not satisfied that the accommodation at Flat 7, 180 Bravington Road, London W9 constitutes settled accommodation. As stated above, the accommodation was a studio flat, that was occupied for 4 people, 2 of whom were adults. The accommodation was statutorily overcrowded, from the onset of the tenancy, I am satisfied that the level of overcrowding rendered the accommodation unreasonable.
“13. I acknowledge that both Hammersmith and Fulham Council and the landlord were aware of the family size when they moved into the property However, I am not satisfied that this fact renders the accommodation suitable. As stated above the accommodation was severely overcrowded from the onset. I am therefore satisfied that it was unreasonable for Ms Bullale to occupy.
“14. Although I acknowledge that Ms Bullale resided in the property for 2 years, I do not accept that the length of time she spent in the property makes the accommodation any more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Michala Hodge v Folkestone and Hythe District Council
...Whether accommodation is settled accommodation is a question of fact and degree. 66 He referred to Bullale v Westminster City Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1587 on the chain of causation. If an applicant leaves accommodation and becomes intentionally homeless, she can cease to be intentionally h......