The UK Supreme Court has found that local authorities have a statutory duty to provide accommodation in their own area in ‘so far as reasonably practicable’ under Section 208(1) of the Housing Act 1996.
The appeal was brought by Titina Nzolameso, a single mother of five children who was made homeless after refusing accommodation in Milton Keynes by Westminster Council. Ms. Nzolameso had a number of underlying health conditions requiring ongoing medical attention. The move would have meant that Ms. Nzolameso's children would have had to move schools and her support network in caring for her children would have been removed. Following her refusal, Westminster Council informed Ms. Nzolameso that it no longer had a duty to accommodate her. Ms. Nzolameso subsequently became homeless and her children were taken into care.
In allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court found that the Westminster Council had not discharged its duty to Ms. Nzolameso because she had refused suitable accommodation. In delivering its judgement, Lady Hale found that ‘reasonably practicable’ imports a stronger duty than simply being reasonable. Where it is not reasonably practicable to accommodate ‘in borough’ the Council must generally try to place the household as close as possible to where they were previously living.
The Court also found that in exercising its functions under the Housing Act, the Council was also subject to section 11(2) of the Children Act, which requires it to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Welfare encompasses physical, psychological, social, educational and economic welfare and the duty applies both to the formulation of general policies and practices and to their application in an individual case. The Court found that this does not require that the child’s welfare should be the paramount, or even a primary consideration, as there are numerous factors to consider, however there was a need on the part of the Council to explain its choices, preferably by reference to published policies. Such deficiencies did exist in the present case. On the facts, it was found that no enquiries were made to assess the practicability of moving the family to Milton Keynes or as to the children’s needs, and no consideration seemed to have been given to offer accommodation close by or provide an explanation.
Click here for a copy of the judgement.
Click here for a copy of the press summary.