Supreme Court agrees to hear two cases concerning temporary accommodation for the homeless and the Protection from Eviction Act 1977

Ref. R (CN) v London Borough of Lewisham and R (ZH) v London Borough of Newham [2013]

Following our article on a man in temporary accommodation who was eventually evicted, the Supreme Court is to hear two similar cases on the eviction of homeless applicants. They will be asked to rule on whether authorities are first required to seek possession orders for those in temporary accommodation.

The two cases, R (CN) v London Borough of Lewisham and R (ZH) v London Borough of Newham [2013], both concern occupants given temporary accommodation whilst enquiries were made as to whether a duty was owed under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. This is covered by the provision:

“If the local housing authority have reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless, eligible for assistance and have a priority need, they shall secure that accommodation is available for his occupation pending a decision as to the duty (if any) owed to him under the following provisions of this Part.”

Crucially under consideration is whether the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Mohammed v Manek and Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea [1995] 27 HLR 439 remains good law. That ruling found that temporary accommodation provided in the course of a homelessness application did not fall to be protected under s. 3(2B) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

Lewisham and Newham Borough Councils have both sought to rely on the Manek case in CN and ZH respectively to recover possession of the properties without having obtained a county court order first.

The appellants sought judicial review, arguing that Manek could not stand in the light of the Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling on proportionality in Pinnock and Powell. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal rejected the appellants’ case, saying that possession proceedings were not required.

The Supreme Court has now given the appellants permission to appeal and it remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will disagree with the Court of Appeal’s assessment. A ruling in support of protecting temporarily accommodated homeless applicants, however unlikely, would undoubtedly be frostily received by the Housing Associations and Councils dealing with hundreds of such applications.

www.PropertySurveying.co.uk

SRJ /LCB                                                                                                                     28/10/2013