Source: England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions published on this site Wednesday 6th May 2015 by Jill Powell
This is the transcript of the decision of Lord Justice Moses who stated that the Section does not introduce fresh criteria for determining intentional homelessness.
LORD JUSTICE MOSES: When Mrs Huzrat claimed that she was homeless and eligible for assistance the London Borough of Hounslow was under a full duty to accommodate her, her three children and her husband pursuant to section 193(1) and (2) of the Housing Act 1996 if it was satisfied as to four facts. It had to be satisfied that she was homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the 1996 Act, eligible for assistance -- that is someone not falling within the provisions of section 185 of the 1996 Act -- had a priority need, as identified in section 189(1) of the 1996 Act and was not satisfied that she had become homeless intentionally within the meaning of section 191.
Hounslow was satisfied that she was homeless, was eligible for assistance and had a priority need. But it was also satisfied that she had become homeless intentionally. Accordingly, its duty was confined to that identified in section 190(2)(a) and (b); that is it was required to ensure that such accommodation was available for such a period as it considered would give her a reasonable opportunity of securing accommodation for her and her family's occupation, and secure that she was provided with advice and assistance in any attempts she might make to secure that accommodation became available for her and her family's occupation.
Moreover, pending the inquiry into whether she was homeless and as to whether she was homeless intentionally or not, it exercised its powers under section 184 and once she appealed, under section 204(4) to provide temporary accommodation, where I understand she and her family remain.
She was entitled to a review under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 of the issue as to whether she had become homeless intentionally. This appeal is concerned with the local housing authority's independent officer's conclusion on the review that she was homeless intentionally.
Mrs Huzrat says that in reaching that decision Hounslow failed to act in conformity with its duty under section 11 (2) of the Children's Act 2004. It says that in considering the issue as to whether her homelessness was intentional or not it was required to make arrangements for ensuring (a) that its functions were discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and (b) that any services provided by another person pursuant to arrangements made by the person or body in the discharge of its functions are provided having regard to that need.
His Honour Judge McDowall at Willesden County Court on 18 January 2013 rejected that argument when considering her appeal, restricted as it was to a point of law. Mrs Huzrat now appeals against that decision.
