Lambert v Ealing London Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE KERR,LORD JUSTICE MAY |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 1982 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1982] EWCA Civ J0129-2 |
| Date | 29 January 1982 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 82/0038 |
[1982] EWCA Civ J0129-2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE BRENTFORD COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE HAYMAN)
Royal Courts of Justice.
The Master of the Rolls
(Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Kerr and
Lord Justice May
82/0038
Plaint No. 80 07179
MR. ANDREW BANO (instructed by Messrs. Douglas Mann & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
MR. PATRICK CLARKSON (instructed by Messrs. Sharpe Pritchard & Co., London agents for N.L. Green, Esq., Chief Solicitor, London Borough of Ealing) appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
This is another housing case which shows the impact of our joining the European Community. In the De Falco case (1980) 1 Queen's Bench 460 two families came from Italy: and claimed afterwards to be housed here. In this case a French family has come from France and claims the benefit of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. They have the benefit of our legal aid. They are a very nice family, who deserve to be well-housed. They will, I am sure, contribute much to our society. But still we have to see what the legal position is in regard to the housing of them.
Monsieur Rene Lambert is a real Frenchman. He cannot speak English. At the age of 51 be came over from France to settle in England. He previously had a good business as a bookseller in Grenoble. His wife had died, but he had three charming daughters: Veronique (aged 19) at the university; Pascalle (aged 16) and Mireille (aged 13), both at school. Yet in the summer of 1978 he sold his business and all his possessions in France. He had £6,000 left: and he came over to England.
Previously, with his savings, he had bought a motor caravan in which he and his three daughters came to England and were on holiday here from July to August or September. Then he decided to stay. He made that decision, he says, because of his daughters: they would be better educated here than in France. This has proved true. Veronique (the eldest) is at the Queen Mary College here studying for a degree in French and Spanish. The younger two are at the Lycee Francaise in the Cromwell Road.
Once he had decided to stay, he had to find accommodation here for himself, his daughters, and apparently their dog. He had some savings out of the money he received from selling his business in France. So he could pay a good rent for a time. He obtained a "holiday let" at 7 St. Helen's Road, Ealing. That was for six months from the 12th September, 1978 until the 11th March, 1979. The rent was £42 a week. When that expired, he took another "holiday let" at 9 Southfield Road, W.4. The rent was £56 a week for six months from the 10th March, 1979 until the 10th September, 1979.
During this period Monsieur Lambert got a job here as a van driver for a French concern with an attractive name—Maison Bouquillon Patisserie. He has worked well for them: and they have every confidence in him.
When the second "holiday let" came to an end in September 1979 be could not find other accommodation. So a few days later, on the 9th October, 1979, he went to the Ealing Council and asked them to house him. Veronique went with him because her English was getting very good. He was still struggling along with his bad English. They told the Housing Department of their difficulties. The Housing Department said, "Go back and await a possession order". (Housing authorities do not house people until they are actually turned out of their accommodation).
The landlord of the "holiday let" took proceedings for possession. On the 4th February, 1980 the Brentford County Court made an order for Monsieur Lambert to give up possession of 9 Southfield Road on the 17th March, 1980. So Monsieur Lambert and his family had to leave.
They went to the Ealing Council, who made enquiries. They provided the family with temporary accommodation—"bed and breakfast" accommodation—at a motel at 82 Gordon Road, Ealing. The council said that they were under no obligation to house them permanently: because they took the view that Monsieur Lambert was "intentionally homeless". They wrote him a letter giving their reasons—which they have to do under the statute. The Director of Housing wrote:
"Dear Mr. Lambert,
"In response to your application to this housing authority for accommodation, appropriate enquiries have been carried out and the following decisions arrived at:—
-
1. The authority are satisfied that you are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
-
2. The authority are satisfied that you have a priority need.
-
3. The authority are satisfied that you became homeless, or were threatened with homelessness intentionally.
"For the purposes of Section 8 of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, you are hereby notified that this decision has been determined for the following reasons:—
"That you failed to secure for yourself and your family permanent accommodation when you came to this country".
We do not analyse the Housing Department's reasons too closely in this court. As we said in the De Falco case, we look at the substance of the matter. The substance here is that the local authority were saying, "When you left France, you made yourself intentionally homeless. We know that you have had those two 'holiday lets' since: but your original 'intentional homelessness' is still the cause of your being homeless now. We are not bound to house you permanently. All we are bound to do is to give you temporary accommodation until you find something for yourself".
Monsieur Lambert then went to a solicitor. The solicitor found a case which helped him. It was the case of Youngs v. Thanet District Council. It had been decided by Judge Mervyn Davies, Q.C., sitting as a High Court judge in the Chancery Division. The solicitor had seen it in the Times newspaper. It has since been reported in volume 78 of Knight's Local Government Reports 474. On the basis of that case, Monsieur Lambert, through his solicitor, claimed that he was unintentionally homeless. If he was right, it would mean that he would go to the top of the housing list. He would take priority over all the young married couples and others in the council's area who were waiting for accommodation.
The council disputed Monsieur Lambert's claim. As the matter was in dispute, they allowed him to reamin in the "bed and breakfast" accommodation pending its resolution. Monsieur Lambert, with his solicitor, went to the county court. The matter was argued before Judge Hayman. He gave judgment on the 29th May, 1981 in which he held in favour of Monsieur Lambert. He thought that the case was covered by Youngs v. Thanet District Council. He gave judgment for Monsieur Lambert. Now the Ealing Council come to this court.
Since our previous decision, there have been two cases in the House of Lords. They were decided last November. They are Din v. Wandsworth London Borough Council (1981) 3 Weekly Law Reports 918; and Reg. v. Hillingdon London Borough Council, ex parte Islam (1981) 3 Weekly Law Reports 942.
Mr. Bano, on behalf of Monsieur Lambert, said that the House of Lords had put a strict construction on the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. He urged us to do the same. He said that on the simple words of sections 1(1) and 17(1) of the Act, Monsieur Lambert was homeless unintentionally. He had not done anything deliberately to make himself homeless. He had been living in England for eighteen months before the possession order was obtained. He had his home here. He was then turned out by the landlord. So he became "unintentionally homeless": and the council ought to have provided permanent accommodation for him.
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 came to England to work. They stayed with relatives here for a few weeks, and got jobs here. Then—when the relatives would not let them stay any longer—they went to the local authority and said, "We want to be housed by you. We are unintentionally homeless. Our relatives have turned us out". But this court held—as a matter of good sense—that you have to look at the position when they left Italy. They left their home in Italy, packed up and came over here: and so became intentionally homeless in Italy. That intentional homelessness carried on when they were in England. Therefore the local authority were entitled to find that they were intentionally homeless.
The authority of that case was not shaken in the least by anything said in the House of Lords. On the contrary, it was commended. Lord Wilberforce said in Ex parte Islam at page 945:
"The difficulties of the Act are certainly diminished to some extent by the decision of the Court of Appeal in De Falco v. Crawley Borough Council…But many foreseeable difficulties remain".
Lord Lowry, after pointing out the difficulties, said at page 953:
"The principle of De Falco…is the safeguard…" So, although De Falco put a liberal interpretation on the statute, it was upheld by the House of Lords.
The next case is Dyson v. Kerrier District Council (1980) 1 Weekly Law Reports 1205. A lady had a flat in Huntingdon. She left that flat and went to stay at Helston in Cornwall on a "winter let" for six months. She was turned out of the "winter let" at the end of that period. She then went to the local authority, the Kerrier District Council, and said, "Please house me. I am unintentionally homeless. I have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rikha Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC
...temporary accommodation. Ackner LJ had said (in a passage later cited by the Court of Appeal in Lambert v Ealing Borough Council [1982] 1 WLR 550, 557): "To remove his self-imposed disqualification, he must therefore have achieved what can be loosely described as a 'settled residence,' as ......
-
Awua v Brent London Borough Council
...not displaced by obtaining temporary accommodation. Ackner L.J. had said (in a passage later cited by the Court of Appeal in Lambert v. Ealing Borough Council [1982] 1 W.L.R. 550, 557): "To remove his self-imposed disqualification, he must therefore have achieved what can be loosely descri......
-
O'Reilly v Mackman
...v. Wandsworth L.B.C. (1981) 3 Weekly Law Reports 918 at page 922H. To which I would add my words in Lambert v. Ealing L.B.C. (1982) 1 Weekly Law Reports 550 at page 62"The only way in which a local authority's decision in these cases can properly be interfered with is by way of judicial r......
-
O'Reilly v Mackman
......in R. v. Electricity Commissioners, Ex parte London Electricity Joint Committee Co. (1920) Ltd. [1924] 1 ......