Overcrowded accommodation can be settled accommodation which breaks the chain of causation for intentional homelessness.
Homelessness case law summary
Summary
City of Westminster Council found that overcrowded accommodation was not settled accommodation. The council held there had been no break in the chain of causation when deciding if the applicant was intentionally homeless.
The Court of Appeal found that overcrowding was a factor to consider when deciding if accommodation is settled but Westminster had failed to consider other relevant factors. Overcrowded accommodation could still be settled and lead to a break in the chain of causation for intentional homelessness.
Background
Ms Bullale applied to Hammersmith and Fulham as homeless, and the authority accepted a full housing duty towards her. She then refused an offer of suitable accommodation.
Ms Bullale requested an internal review, and the local authority upheld the suitability of that offer. The local authority discharged its duty and Ms Bullale was evicted from temporary accommodation.
Overcrowded accommodation
The authority provided Ms Bullale with a deposit for a private rented bedsit in Westminster. She entered a fixed term tenancy for one year.
Ms Bullale lived in the property with her three daughters until the family were evicted two years later following a section 21 notice. Ms Bullale applied to Westminster as homeless.
No break in the chain of causation
A homeless applicant can be found intentionally homeless because of a deliberate act or omission. The chain of causation can only be broken by a material change of circumstances or occupation of settled accommodation.
Westminster found that Ms Bullale's private rented bedsit was overcrowded and that it was not settled accommodation. It concluded that there had been no settled accommodation to break the chain of causation. The authority found Ms Bullale was intentionally homeless because she had refused the offer of suitable accommodation under her previous homeless application.
Westminster's decision was upheld on review and on appeal to the County Court. Ms Bullale appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal.
The court's decision
Ms Bullale's appeal was upheld. The Court of Appeal found that the local authority made an error in law by finding that Ms Bullale was intentionally homeless. Westminster had failed to consider several factors other than overcrowding.
Factors to be considered
The court held that a local authority should consider certain factors when assessing whether accommodation is settled, including:
the nature and length of the tenancy
whether the accommodation is affordable
whether the accommodation is overcrowded
the expectations of the parties as to the period of occupation
whether the arrangement is commercial or between family members and friends
whether the person took the accommodation with the intention of making another homeless application
any other relevant factor
Overall assessment
Overcrowded accommodation can be settled. The court held that a local authority must consider all relevant factors and make a composite conclusion.
Lord Justice Lewis stated:
'it is not enough simply to identify a potentially relevant factor. It is necessary to identify how that factor is relevant to the question of whether the accommodation is settled or temporary.'
As the reviewing officer had not undertaken the correct analysis of the facts, the intentional homeless decision was quashed and remitted to Westminster for reconsideration.
Comment
Whether accommodation is settled and whether there has been a break in the chain of causation is a question of fact based on all the circumstances of the case.
If the local authority only considers one factor when finding that accommodation was not settled or relies on this too heavily, the decision might be unlawful.