Two ‘significant’ findings in Housing Association Court Case lead to eviction

Temp. Ref. Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities [2013]

In a ‘significant’ decision for Housing Associations across the country, the High Court, presiding over an appeal, has made two important findings:

-          That it should not interfere with a housing association’s eviction of a tenant under a contractual relationship with a local authority.
-          That it was proportionate to end a duty to house a tenant with a serious medical condition, where they had rejected alternative accommodation.

The case concerned Jonathan Akerman-Livingstone, who was given a temporary tenancy with Aster Communities, the defendant, while Mendip Council considered his homelessness application.

The housing association, which had a contractual agreement with the council, was told to serve notice to quit after Mr Akerman-Livingstone rejected a number of offers of ‘suitable’ accommodation. This they did, and the claimant’s appeal was rejected by the High Court, sitting in Bristol, on 10 October.

Justice Cranston noted that while he occupied the property, other vulnerable people could not.  He said the eviction was proportionate since Mr Akerman-Livingstone, who suffered from complex post-traumatic stress disorder, had rejected suitable accommodation.

When Mr Akerman-Livingstone launched a judicial review of this decision, they did accept a fresh application, but lost patience when he again rejected all offers of suitable housing.

Critics have subsequently questioned the impact of PTSD on a man’s capability of assessing and accepting accommodation, but the High Court insisted that it was proportional to end a duty to house a tenant in such circumstances – despite his proven mental disability.

Jonathan Hulley and Senga Howells, who acted on behalf of Aster Communities, said in a statement:

“This is a significant case for all housing associations who temporarily accommodate residents nominated to them by local authority partners.

“The High Court decided not to interfere with a contractual relationship requiring Aster to evict a resident based on a decision made by Mendip District Council to discharge its duty to accommodate that resident itself.”

—

The case concluded in early October and a number of details, including the number of times accommodation was rejected, are yet to be widely reported. The impact of the PTSD will be better viewed relative to these facts and interested parties will await the transcript with interest.

Meanwhile, we report on another two cases, heard at once, which also look at homeless applications and temporary accommodation rights, with the potential to set a significant precedent.

www.PropertySurveying.co.uk

SRJ / LCB                                                                                                                   28/10/2013