Knight v Vale Royal Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Martin Nourse |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWCA Civ 1258 |
| Date | 31 July 2003 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2003/0202 |
[2003] EWCA Civ 1258
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM HIS HONOUR JUDGE HUGHES
WARRINGTON COUNTY COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Pill
Lord Justice Laws and
Sir Martin Nourse
Case No: B2/2003/0202
David Watkinson and Alex Durance (instructed by Shelter, Chester) for the Appellants
Andrew Clark (instructed by Legal Department, Vale Royal Borough Council) for the Respondents
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Introduction
The subject of this appeal is intentional homelessness. By letter dated 22 nd March 2002 the respondents, Vale Royal Borough Council ("the Council"), pursuant to section 184(6) of the Housing Act 1996 ("the 1996 Act"), notified the appellant, Katie-Ann Knight, of their decision ("the first decision") that, although she was eligible for assistance, homeless and in priority need, she had become homeless intentionally within section 191 of the 1996 Act. The letter informed Miss Knight of the reasons for the decision and of her right to request a review of it under section 202 of the 1996 Act. No review was requested, and Miss Knight no longer questions the first decision.
The question we have to decide is whether Miss Knight has since achieved a "settled residence", sufficient to displace her intentional homelessness within the principle first stated by Ackner LJ in ( Din v Wandsworth London Borough Council 23rd June 1981 unreported) and since approved by Lord Wilberforce (one of the majority) in the House of Lords in that case [1983] 1 AC 657, 668 and by Lord Hofmann (with whom all their Lordships agreed) in R v Brent London Borough Councilex parte Awua [1996) AC 55, 69.
By a further letter dated 16 th October 2002 the Council notified Miss Knight of their decision ("the second decision") that she had not achieved a settled residence in the meantime and that the first decision still stood. On this occasion Miss Knight requested a review. By third a letter dated 4 th November 2002 the Council notified her that the second decision was confirmed.
Miss Knight appealed to the Warrington County Court against the second decision pursuant to section 204 of the 1996 Act. Her appeal came before His Honour Judge Hughes, who, on 20 th January 2003, dismissed it and refused permission to appeal. Miss Knight then applied to this court for permission, her application being treated as one for a second appeal. On 22 nd February 2003 Lord Justice Clarke, being of the opinion that the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice, granted permission.
Before the judge it was submitted on behalf of Miss Knight, as a preliminary point, that the court could and should consider the first decision as part of the appeal against the second decision. That submission was resisted by the Council, but the judge thought it obvious, in the circumstances of the case, that the first decision had been adopted by the Council as part of the second decision. He therefore decided the preliminary point in favour of Miss Knight and, having done so, held that the first decision was arrived at properly and without error. As already stated, the first decision is no longer questioned by Miss Knight.
The facts
In the circumstances, it is unnecessary for the facts to be stated as fully as they were stated by the judge. We must, however, give some account of the events which led to the second decision.
On 10 th September 2001 Miss Knight, then aged 18, became an assured tenant of 60 Arkwright Close, Winsford in Cheshire. She held the tenancy jointly with her then partner, Brian Campbell. Towards the end of October 2001, less than two months later, they left that address. Miss Knight said in her witness statement that that was because of harassment and threats of violence from Mr Campbell's father. She added that by reason of the circumstances surrounding their departure their relationship broke down. At first Miss Knight was housed in women's refuges in Northwich and Leigh. At the beginning of January 2002, being then about 7 months pregnant, she went to stay with her parents near Northwich. That could only be on a temporary basis because the house was small with only two bedrooms and Miss Knight's sister lived there as well.
On 2 nd March 2002 Miss Knight gave birth to a son, Correy. Within a week she had made an application to the Council for herself and her son to be treated as a homeless family under the 1996 Act. It was that application that was refused by the first decision, on the ground that it would have been reasonable for her to continue to occupy 60 Arkwright Close.
The story can be taken up in the words of Miss Knight's witness statement:
"11. Thankfully I then managed to secure a private sector assured shorthold tenancy at 46 Solvay Road, Winnington, Northwich. The landlord, Mr Robinson, did tell me that he would be requiring the accommodation after a period of six months and on 29 th August 2002 he served a valid notice to quit….."
The notice to quit took effect on 31 st October 2002.
When the matter was being considered by the Council in October and November 2002, also at the hearing before the judge, it seems to have been assumed that there was no written tenancy agreement between Mr Robinson and Miss Knight, nor any written evidence of its terms. However, subsequent to the hearing before the judge, Miss Knight's solicitor obtained from the Council's Housing Benefits Department a copy of a letter dated 29 th April 2002 from Mr Robinson to that department which reads:
"I am writing to confirm that from 1 st May 2002 that Katie Ann Knight will be taking up residence of my property at 46 Solvay Road Winnington Northwich CW8 4DR.
The rent payable is £360.00 per four weeks including water rates. The above property is fully furnished and it is to be taken on a six monthly renegotiable contract."
The letter was signed by both Mr Robinson and Miss Knight. It appears that the original had been sent by Miss Knight to the Housing Benefits Department, and she no doubt had forgotten its existence.
Not surprisingly, Miss Knight applied for leave to adduce the letter of 29 th April 2002 as fresh evidence in this court. Surprisingly, as we thought, the application was resisted by the Council on the principles of Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, primarily on the ground that the letter would probably not have an important influence on the result of the case. It seemed to us to be quite wrong that the appeal should be considered without taking into account a highly relevant document which had throughout been in the possession of the Council, albeit in a department other than that which had had to consider Miss Knight's homelessness application. We therefore granted the application.
It is necessary to refer to further evidence relied on by the Council in order to establish that, notwithstanding the terms of the letter of 29 th April 2002, Miss Knight's tenancy of 46 Solvay Road was intended both by her and by Mr Robinson to last for six months and no more. First, there is para 11 of Miss Knight's witness statement, which we have already read. Secondly, a note of an interview with Miss Knight and her mother conducted on behalf of the Council on 1 st October 2002 records the following:
"She signed a six month tenancy agreement but the landlord advised them when Katie moved in that he wanted to sell it after October. Katie knew that she would be there for 6 months but probably no longer than that."
Thirdly, in response to a letter written to him by the Council on 2 nd October, Mr Robinson telephoned the Council and said that Miss Knight was fully aware that the tenancy would not be extended when she moved in. In a confirmatory letter dated 4 th October 2002 Mr Robinson said that the tenancy was for 6 months and would end on 31 st October 2002. He added:
"The tenancy agreement has ended due to my wanting the property; Miss Knight knew this at the time of signing the agreement".
Fourthly, Mr Robinson provided Miss Knight with a typed document dated 19 th July 2002, addressed to her and headed with a reference to a tenancy agreement for 46 Solvay Road. The document stated:
"The tenancy agreement is for 6 months commencing 1 st May 2002 to 31 st October 2002.
This agreement will not be extended.
The property to be vacated on 1 st November 2002.
All damages to be made good before vacating the property.
Please sign and return."
There were then spaces for the signatures of Mr Robinson and Miss Knight. The document, unsigned by either party, appears to have been sent, presumably by Miss Knight, to the housing trust then acting as agent for the Council.
Finally, we must refer to the material terms of the Council's letter dated 16 th October 2002 notifying Miss Knight of the second decision, also of the letter dated 29 th October 2002 requesting a review of that decision and the Council's letter dated 4 th November 2002 confirming it. The letter of 16 th October contained the following:
"As you are aware you were found to be intentionally homeless...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of C) v The London Borough of Islington
...degree depending upon the circumstances of each individual case." 45 Those representing the defendant have brought to my attention, Knight v Vale Royal RBC [2003] EWCA Civ 1258, whilst those representing the claimant have brought to my attention, Huda v Redbridge LBC [2016] EWCA Civ 709. It......
-
Huda v The London Borough of Redbridge
...assured tenancy on the express basis that it would not be continued after 6 months, was held not to have had "settled accommodation": Knight v Vale RBC [2004] HLR 106. At page 116, this Court took account of the fact that accommodation in the private sector would normally be on an assured s......
-
Kaltun Bullale v City of Westminster Council
...R v Brent London Borough Council ex p. Awua [1995] 1 A.C. 55 at 69b-d and by the Court of Appeal in Knight v Vale Royal Borough Council [2004] H.L.R. 9 at para. 24 Thirdly, the factors that may be relevant include the basis on which the accommodation is occupied (whether it is occupied unde......
-
Adrian Doka v London Borough of Southwark
...of security of tenure compared with the position she previously enjoyed under the assured shorthold tenancy. 16 Knight v Vale RBC [2003] EWCA Civ 1258 ; [2004] HLR 9 was a case where the appellant had become intentionally homeless from property she occupied under an assured tenancy but th......