R v Eastleigh Borough Council, ex parte Betts
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Fraser of Tullybelton,Lord Wilberforce,Lord Edmund-Davies,Lord Roskill,Lord Brightman |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 1983 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1983] UKHL J0727-3 |
| Date | 27 July 1983 |
[1983] UKHL J0727-3
House of Lords
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Lord Wilberforce
Lord Edmund-Davies
Lord Roskill
Lord Brightman
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman. I agree with it, and for the reasons stated in it I would allow this appeal.
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech by my noble and learned friend, Lord Brightman. I agree with it and for the reasons he gives I would allow the appeal.
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft form the opinion prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Brightman, and I concur in the reasoning which has led him to the conclusion that this appeal should be allowed.
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech to be delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Brightman. For the reasons he gives I too would allow this appeal.
My Lords,
The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 entitles a homeless person to apply to a housing authority for accommodation. If the housing authority to whom application is made considers that the applicant has no local connection with the area of that authority, the authority may be in a position to transfer the statutory responsibility to another housing authority with whose area the applicant has a local connection. The respondents to this appeal, Ronald Thomas Betts and Vivien Anne Betts became homeless through no fault of their own at a time when they were living in the area of the appellants the Eastleigh Borough Council ("Eastleigh") in Hampshire. They applied to Eastleigh for accommodation. Mr. and Mrs. Betts had formerly lived in the area of the Blaby District Council ("Blaby") in Leicestershire. Both Eastleigh and Blaby are in agreement that the responsibility for housing Mr. and Mrs. Betts properly belongs to Blaby. Mr. and Mrs. Betts, who wish to remain in the area of Eastleigh, seek to challenge that decision by way of judicial review. They were successful before the Court of Appeal.
Mr. Betts is 37 years of age. He was born in London, and in his early years worked there. In 1973 he lived and worked in Dunstable. In the following year he moved to Milton Keynes and commuted to work in London. Thereafter he lived and worked abroad for a while. In 1978 he secured a job in Leicester and went to live in a council house in the Blaby area. In the meantime Mr. and Mrs. Betts' two daughters had been born, the elder being now aged 9 and the younger nearly 5.
In August 1980 Mr. Betts left his family temporarily in order to take up employment with Southern Television as a film processor at their studios in Southampton. In October he secured rented accommodation in the Eastleigh area, and Mrs. Betts and their daughters joined him there. He gave up his Blaby council house, regrettably without giving the Council any notice and with arrears of rent outstanding. Unfortunately Southern Television lost their franchise shortly afterwards and as a result Mr. Betts lost his employment. He again fell into arrear with his rent. On 3rd February 1981 an order for possession was made against him, to take effect on 3rd March. On 6th February he was given an interview with Mr. Renouf, a senior assistant in the Estates Management Department of Eastleigh, and he applied under the Act for accommodation.
The immediate result of that application was that Eastleigh became under a statutory duty to make enquiries to satisfy themselves that Mr. and Mrs. Betts were in fact homeless, and to ascertain whether they had a "priority need" for accommodation by reason of dependent children and whether they had become homeless "intentionally" within the meaning of the Act; section 3(1) and (2). Furthermore Eastleigh became entitled, if they thought fit, to make enquiries as to whether the applicants had "a local connection with the area of another housing authority"; section 3(3). Eastleigh also became under a duty to secure that temporary accommodation was made available for occupation by Mr. and Mrs. Betts pending any decision which Eastleigh might make as a result of their enquiries; section 3(4). Eastleigh has performed the duty of securing temporary accommodation for Mr. and Mrs. Betts by making a dwelling house available for them at 85 High Street, Eastleigh.
As a result of enquiries, Mr. Grant, the Chief Housing Officer of Eastleigh had satisfied himself by 25th February 1981 (see his letter of that date) that Mr. and Mrs. Betts were homeless, had a priority need for accommodation, and were not homeless intentionally. Eastleigh thereby became under a duty under section 4(5) of the Act, replacing their previous duty under section 3(4), to secure that (permanent) accommodation became available for Mr. and Mrs. Betts subject however to section 5. Section 5 defines responsibility as between different housing authorities, and it is with this section that this appeal is concerned. In his letter of 25th February Mr. Green added "… your application under the Act has been notified to Blaby District Council because you have lived in this borough for less than 6 months, and are not employed in this borough and do not have any relatives here. Your rehousing is therefore considered to be their responsibility." This assessment of the situation is accepted by Blaby, but not by Mr. and Mrs. Betts.
I turn now to the provisions of section 5. If that section does not apply, Eastleigh accept that the responsibility is theirs under section 4(5) to secure accommodation for Mr. and Mrs. Betts. So far as relevant, section 5 reads as follows:-
"5.(1) A housing authority are not subject to a duty under section 4(5) above -
(a) if they are of the opinion -
(i) that neither the person who applied to them for accommodation or for assistance in obtaining accommodation nor any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him has a local connection with their area, and
(ii) that the person who so applied or a person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him has a local connection with another housing authority's area and
(iii) …..
(b) if they notify that authority -
(i) that the application has been made, and
(ii) that they are of the opinion specified in paragraph (a) above.
(2) In this Act 'notifying authority' means a housing authority who give a notification under subsection (1) above and 'notified authority' means a housing authority who receive such a notification.
(3) It shall be the duty of the notified authority to secure that accommodation becomes available for occupation by the person to whom the notification relates if neither he nor any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him has a local connection with the area of the notifying authority but the conditions specified in subsection (4) below are satisfied.
(4) The conditions mentioned in subsection (3) above are -
(a) that the person to whom the notification relates or some person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him has a local connection with the area of the notified authority, and
(b)…
(7) Any question which falls to be determined under this section shall be determined by agreement between the notifying authority and the notified authority or, in default of such agreement, in accordance with the appropriate arrangements.
(8) The appropriate arrangements for the purposes of this section are any such arrangements as the Secretary of State may by order direct."
Section 19(1) of the Act provides that unless the context otherwise requires "local connection" shall be construed in accordance with section 18, which enacts as follows:-
"18.(1) Any reference in this Act to a person having a local connection with an area is a reference to his having a connection with that area -
(a) because he is or in the past was normally resident in it and his residence in it is or was of his own choice; or
(b) because he is employed in it, or
(c) because of family associations, or
(d) because of any special circumstances."
Subsections (2) and (3), which I need not read, explain when residence is not of a person's own choice, and when a person is not to be considered as employed in an area.
It is obvious that time consuming and expensive disputes might arise between housing authorities as to the existence of a "local connection". Such disputes are not in the interest either of housing authorities or of homeless persons. The purposes of the Act demand speedy solutions to questions of doubt. To avoid such disputes, and to settle them quickly and cheaply if they arise, certains steps have been taken on behalf of housing authorities. First, in order to facilitate agreements between notifying authorities and notified authorities as required by section 5(7) a national "Agreement on Procedures for Referrals of the Homeless" was negotiated between the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the London Boroughs Association at the time when the Bill was being considered by Parliament. This Agreement has been adhered to by the majority of housing authorities. Secondly, by the Housing (Homeless Persons) (Appropriate Arrangements) Order 1978 the Secretary of State for the Environment, in exercise of his powers under subsection (8) has established the "Appropriate Arrangements" set out in the schedule to the order for the purpose of settling unresolved disputes between housing authorities. These arrangements are in a form which was agreed by the three associations who negotiated the Agreement on Procedures. They provide for any disputed question under section 5 to be determined speedily either by a person agreed upon by the authorities concerned or by a person chosen from a panel. These arrangements...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lemari Minott v Cambridge City Council
...(interim duty pending inquiries);” 13 Sections 10.13 and 10.14 reflect the decision of the House of Lords in R v Eastleigh BC Ex p Betts [1983] 2 AC 613 in making clear that ‘normal residence’ of whatever length will not necessarily determine “local connection”; see Lord Brightman at p.627,......
-
R SA v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 5 th ed. (1995), pp 506 et seq., paras 11–004 et seq." 32. The Claimant relied upon R v Eastleigh Borough Councilex parte Betts [1983] 2 AC 613, in which the House of Lords held that it was permissible to adopt general policy guidelines for determin......
-
Al-Almeri v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council; Osmani v Harrow London Borough Council. Glasgow City Council, intervening
...phrase "of his own choice" in section 199(1)(a) that lies at the heart of the dispute. 37 In R v Eastleigh Borough Council, Ex p Betts [1983] 2 AC 613 the question was whether the respondents had a "local connection" with the appellants' area within the meaning of section 18(1)(a) of the 19......
-
Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council
...is no overriding reason or principle why interim accommodation should not count as normal residence for that purpose. 22 In R v Eastleigh Borough Council, Ex p Betts [1983] 2 AC 613, 628 Lord Brightman stressed that "the real exercise will be to decide whether the normal residence has been......