Reasonable living expenses are the same as essential needs when a local authority decides if a homeless applicant's previous property was affordable.
Homelessness case law summary
Summary
Homelessness regulations state that a local authority must take into account the ‘reasonable living expenses’ of a homeless applicant when it decides if their previous accommodation was affordable.
The Homelessness Code of Guidance advises that the authority must consider the ‘essential needs’ of the household.
The Court of Appeal held there is no inconsistency between the reasonable living expenses and essential needs of a household.
Background
Mr Patel applied as homeless to the London Borough of Hackney following eviction from private rented accommodation due to rent arrears.
The local authority decision
The local authority decision maker increased Mr Patel's allowed expenditure by including an allowance of £32 per week for the replacement of white goods. Mr Patel had not included this his statement.
Despite this, the decision maker still found the property to have been affordable for Mr Patel and found that he was intentionally homeless.
Unsuccessful internal review
Mr Patel requested a review of the decision. The reviewing officer adjusted both income and outgoing figures, including removing the £32 allowance for white goods.
The reviewing officer concluded that there was sufficient flexibility in the family’s budget to cover such items and upheld the original decision.
The court's decision
Mr Patel appealed the decision.
The Court of Appeal upheld the local authority decision that Mr Patel was intentionally homeless.
No conflict between regulations and code
The court held there was no conflict between ‘reasonable living expenses’ mentioned in Article 2 of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 and ‘essential needs’ referred to in para 17.46 of the 2018 Homelessness Code of Guidance.
The Court of Appeal stated:
"The statutory test requires the local housing authority to determine what in the particular case was a reasonable level of expenditure and the guidance in the Code suggests that this should be measured by what the applicant requires in order to provide as a minimum standard the basic essentials of life."
Sufficient flexibility in the budget
The reviewing officer had found there was sufficient flexibility in the family budget to cater for occasional expenditure on the replacement of white goods.
The judgment concluded that the £32 per week allowance for white goods had not been explained and the reviewing officer was entitled to remove it.
The figure was also notably higher than the £8 figure suggested by Association of Housing Advice Services (AHAS) guidance on the cost of living from March 2017.
Comment
This case confirms that there is no inconsistency between the reasonable living expenses referred to in homelessness regulations and the essential needs mentioned in the Homelessness Code of Guidance.
Stricter approach on expenditure
The expenditure on white goods initially added by the local authority was not an evidenced cost, though the Court of Appeal did acknowledge that it could be a necessary expense.
Affordability cases can turn on their own facts, but this case, along with Baptie v Kingston-upon-Thames, shows the courts taking a stricter view on expenditure.
Benefits of advice and representation
Mr Patel was not represented in his review. If he had been, his budget might have shown different, evidenced income and expenditure.
Debt and budgeting advice can help people at risk of homelessness - or who need to make a homeless application - prepare a realistic budget that demonstrates that a property is not affordable.
Find out where to get debt and money advice on Shelter Legal.