London Borough of Enfield v A

Hearing date: 16/10/2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 27/10/2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Introduction

The issue on this appeal is the lawfulness of an out of borough placement made available to an applicant for homelessness assistance. There are two substantive grounds of challenge. First, it is alleged that the London Borough of Enfield (“Enfield”) failed to search for available accommodation closer to the applicant's former home than the accommodation which was in fact made available. Second, it is said that Enfield failed to comply with its statutory duty to notify the local authority in whose district the applicant was placed within the statutory time limit. If either or both these challenges are well-founded, there is potentially a further issue about the relief that the court can grant.

The facts

Ms A was born on 18 June 1999. While she was living in Enfield, she was the victim of domestic abuse perpetrated by her ex-partner, MB. She was badly assaulted in June and July 2022; for which MB was convicted in January 2023 on three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was given a custodial sentence of 20 months and was the subject of a restraining order for 5 years.

On 4 August 2022 Ms A applied to Enfield for homelessness assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”); and on 15 November 2022 Enfield notified Ms A that it accepted that it owed her the full housing duty under section 193 (2) of the Act.

It is common ground that, owing to her fear of violence at the hands of MB, his family and friends, Ms A did not wish to be accommodated in Enfield. On 17 April 2023 Enfield offered Ms A temporary accommodation in Studio B. Studio B is located in the neighbouring London Borough of Haringey and is approximately 1 ¹/₂ miles from Enfield. Ms A accepted the offer and moved in but requested a review of the suitability of the offered accommodation.

During the course of the review, she was represented by Hodge Jones & Allen, highly experienced solicitors with considerable housing expertise, who made representations on her behalf on no less than six occasions. On the question of suitability, they raised five points:

i) The accommodation was too small;

ii) Its location placed Ms A at the risk of violence and threats of violence;

iii) It was having a negative effect on her mental health;

iv) It was in disrepair; and

v) There was no free parking.

In their representations to Enfield, Ms A's solicitors highlighted the domestic abuse that Ms A had suffered at the hands of MB. They said that she remained vulnerable to abuse and harm from MB and his associates; and as a result, was unable to reside anywhere within Enfield. Ideally, she wished to be placed in Waltham Cross in Broxbourne or Northwood in Hillingdon. They stated that although Studio B was in Haringey, it was not suitable because the 217 bus route that Ms A used to visit her mother ran through areas where her ex-partner and his family resided; and that MB and his associates were known to use that bus route. She had not, however, been exposed to violence or threats of violence at Studio B. The points made about the location of Studio B were specific to that property. It was not suggested that Ms A either could or should have been placed in accommodation closer either to her previous address or to Enfield.

The review was carried out by Ms Lisa Colosso. In her decision letter dated 21 July 2023, she began by setting out the information which she had considered. This included the Homelessness Code of Guidance 2006, [sic, (which is assumed to be a typographical error)] the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 2012, Enfield's placement policy, Ms A's housing file and the representations made on her behalf by her solicitors.

The only part of Enfield's placement policy relevant to this appeal is paragraph 4.4 which states:

“Enfield Council's policy is to house residents in accommodation within the borough wherever possible. However, there are occasions where we will support households to move to accommodation outside the London Borough of Enfield:

• Where there is an ongoing threat to the safety of a household if they remain in Enfield

• Where there is no suitable affordable accommodation within Enfield available.

Where we are offering accommodation outside Enfield, we will support households in finding accommodation out of the borough. Where possible this will be close to Enfield, taking account of affordability and other factors set out in this policy. However, in some cases we may need to source accommodation further away due to a lack of suitable and affordable accommodation in the area.”

The reviewing officer considered the points that Ms A's solicitors had made about the bus route and rejected them; not least because there were other ways for Ms A to use public transport to visit her mother. In paragraph 41 of the decision, the reviewing officer stated:

“Understandably you are fearful for your safety and would like to live in close proximity to your mother, however both you and the professionals involved in your case have been clear that you cannot safely reside in Enfield. As such, the Council had no option but to move you out of the area. We have however, attempted to alleviate your distress and the possibility of isolation from your support network by accommodating you in a neighbouring borough, and, in particular, an area which [borders] Enfield.”

Under the heading “Location” the review decision stated in paragraph 47:

“In the first instance I considered section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 which states that “so far as reasonably practicable a local authority shall in discharging their housing functions under this part secure that accommodation is available for the applicant in their district.” However, as discussed [with] you prior to allocation you advised the Council that you are unable to reside in the London Borough of Enfield due to a risk of violence and threats of violence from MB and his family and friends. You confirmed that you wished to remain in London so that you could continue to access support provided by your family who reside in Enfield. Specific areas of interest were Northwood in Hillingdon and Broxbourne (which is outside of London). I note that a DASH Risk Assessment completed on 15 August 2022 advised that Haringey was also a consideration. Therefore, while I acknowledge that your placement is not local, I am satisfied that it was at your request. I am further satisfied that you were placed in a borough that you had originally expressed an interest in.”

A DASH Risk Assessment (to which paragraph 47 referred) is a multi-agency tool used for assessing the risk of domestic abuse, stalking, harassment and honour-based violence. Although we have not seen the DASH Risk Assessment itself, subsequent documentation (which we have seen) indicates that the Assessment advised that Haringey was an area which Ms A was willing to consider.

In paragraph 48 the reviewing officer said:

“I have confirmed that [Studio B] is not in an isolated position. According to Google Maps you are a 6-minute walk away from Wood Green Shopping Centre which provides access to numerous shops and amenities. Public transport links are good. The 144, 232, 121 and 329 buses run through to Enfield thus allowing you to remain in contact with your support in the area. Wood Green Tube station and Alexandra Palace & Hornsey Train Stations also offer routes back into the borough and into central London.”

The reviewing officer went on to describe the severe housing shortage in Enfield, and the increasing number of applications for homelessness assistance. Her ultimate conclusion was that Studio B was suitable accommodation.

On 4 August 2023 Ms A appealed to the county court against that decision.

On 8 November 2023 Enfield notified Haringey LBC that Ms A had been placed in their district.

On 8 August 2024 HHJ Roberts allowed Ms A's appeal and quashed the decision.

Events have moved on since then. Ms A is no longer at risk of violence from her ex-partner, and, in addition, she gave birth to a child on 13 December 2024. Enfield therefore reassessed the suitability of the accommodation in view of the increase in the household. Their decision was given on 31 December 2024; and is also the subject of an appeal to the county court (which is not before us). Nothing I say in this judgment should be taken as pre-determining the outcome of that appeal.

With the permission of Newey LJ, Enfield now appeals against the order of HHJ Roberts.

Statutory framework

The powers and duties of a housing authority as regards the homeless are set out in Part 7 of the Act. They are well-known and need not be set out fully. In exercising those powers and discharging those duties the authority must “have regard to such guidance” as may be given by the Secretary of State: section 182.

The full housing duty, which Enfield accepts it owed to Ms A, is contained in section 193 (2). That duty is a duty “to secure that accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant.” The duty may only be discharged in one of three ways, of which the relevant...