Luton Community Housing Ltd v Durdana [2020] EWCA Civ 445

Court of Appeal, 26 March 2020

A housing association has successfully appealed against a County Court decision, which dismissed its claim for possession against a tenant.

A tenant (Ms Durdana), who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and had a disabled child, applied to Luton Community Housing for homelessness assistance. She was subsequently granted a tenancy, but it was discovered that she and her husband had inputted false details on the application form. Luton Community Housing consequently initiated possession proceedings under the Housing Act 1988. Ms Durdana brought a legal challenge against the decision, arguing that possession was unreasonable because of its adverse effect on her and her daughter. She also argued that Luton Community Housing had not complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”) under the Equality Act 2010. The County Court held that Luton Community Housing had breached the PSED and had not sufficiently considered the impact the eviction would have on Ms Durdana and her child. The Court also held that the failure to comply with the PSED meant that it did not have to consider whether it was reasonable to make a possession order – after all, if Luton Community Housing had sufficiently considered all of the relevant factors, the possession proceedings may not have been initiated. Luton Community Housing appealed.

The Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeal, held that, although there had been a breach of the public sector equality duty, that did not prevent the recovery of possession of premises from tenants with a protected characteristic. The medical reports did not suggest that the impact of eviction would have had a disproportionate effect on Ms Durdana and her daughter. It also said that had Ms Durdana and her husband provided honest answers in the application form they would not have been granted the tenancy, particularly as there was a shortage of social housing. The claim was remitted to the County Court to decide whether it was reasonable to make the possession order.

The ruling highlights the importance of housing providers complying with public sector equality duty requirements are complied with, particularly in situations where the provider is aware that a protected characteristic is being relied on as a defence to possession.

A copy of the judgment is here.

McMahon v Watford Borough Council; Keifer v Hertsmere Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 497

Court of Appeal, 8 April 2020

The Court of Appeal has held that local authority reviewing officers had complied with the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010.

Two housing applicants applied to Watford Borough Council and Hertsmere Borough Council for assistance respectively. The first applicant (Mr McMahon) had a medical condition but it was decided that he was not in priority need. The decision, after taking into account the PSED under the Equality Act 2010, was upheld by a reviewing officer. However, on appeal, a County Court held that the reviewing officer had not shown that he had properly complied with the PSED. The second applicant (Mr Keifer) was also deemed to not be in priority need by the local authority. A reviewing officer agreed, finding that Mr Keifer’s physical and mental conditions did not make him “vulnerable”. On appeal, a County Court also quashed the decision, finding that the reviewing officer had not demonstrated that she had complied with the PSED. Watford Borough Council and Hertsmere Borough Council appealed the decisions.

The Court of Appeal, in allowing the appeals, held that both reviewing officers had sufficiently considered whether the medical conditions of the two applicants impaired their ability to carry out normal day-to day-activities or affected their ability to deal with the consequences of homelessness. This complied with the PSED requirements.

A copy of the judgment is here.

Oshin v The Royal Borough of Greenwich [2020] EWCA Civ 388

Court of Appeal, 17 March 2020

The Court of Appeal has held that a false statement made by a housing applicant persuaded a local housing authority to grant a tenancy.

A housing applicant (Ms Oshin) had come to the UK and applied to the Royal Borough of Greenwich to be placed on the housing list. She completed a housing application form, but gave false information when answering two questions on the form, indicating that (1) she did not have to complete an immigration form, and (2) she had lived in private rented accommodation in the UK for nearly a decade. On the basis of this, Ms Oshin was granted a secure tenancy. She subsequently completed an amendment application form, when her sons came to live with her, again providing false information regarding her immigration status. She was granted a second tenancy. However, when the falsehoods came to light, the Royal Borough of Greenwich was granted a possession order. Ms Oshin unsuccessfully appealed to the County Court and consequently appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the Ms Oshin’s false statements on her application form regarding her immigration status had resulted in her securing a tenancy, and Royal Borough of Greenwich was entitled to possession of the property. It rejected the argument that the false statements could not be operative once a tenancy had been allocated.

A copy of the judgment is here.

LB v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2020] EWCA Civ 439

Court of Appeal, 24 March 2020

The Court of Appeal has upheld a reviewing officer's decision that a housing applicant had made herself intentionally homeless due to rent arrears.

An applicant (LB) and her former husband had lived together in rented private accommodation with their three children. Following domestic violence, the husband moved out and a non-molestation order was made against him. After incurring rent arrears, LB made a housing application to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, stating that the rent arrears were due to housing benefit changes; she did not mention domestic violence. A possession order was granted. London Borough of Tower Hamlets decided that LB had made herself intentionally homeless due to the rent arrears. The reviewing officer concluded that there was no evidence of violence since the non-molestation orders had been made. LB appealed, but this was rejected by the County Court. LB subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the reviewing officer had sufficiently investigated the background to LB's eviction and had been entitled to reach the decision she did based on the available evidence.

A copy of the judgment is here.

James v Hertsmere Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 489

Court of Appeal, 2 April 2020

The Court of Appeal has held that a local authority was able to contract out its homelessness reviews and extend the private provider’s contract.

An applicant (Mr James) applied to Hertsmere Borough Council for accommodation on the basis that he was homeless under the Housing Act 1996. Hertsmere Borough Council, however, found that he was not in priority need, and that he was intentionally homeless. This decision was upheld on review. Hertsmere Borough Council had contracted out its homelessness review function to a private sector property company (RMG), and this contract had been extended for a further 12 months. Mr James’ review straddled the period before and after the initial contract term.

Mr James appealed to the County Court, claiming that the review decision was of no effect because Hertsmere Borough had unlawfully contracted out its homelessness review function because a junior official had no authority to extend the contract term beyond the initial 12 months. The County Court, however, found that the review decision was lawful and Mr James subsequently appealed.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, held that the County Court had been right to dismiss the appeal. RMG had been entitled to carry out the review and it had been requested during the initial 12-month contract. It also held that the County Court had jurisdiction to consider the contracting-out issue.

A copy of the judgment is here.