30. That being so, the question which arises is whether or not there is any limitation upon the duty to provide or continue to provide such accommodation for as long as the need, once assessed, continues. In my view the position is as follows. Once a local authority has assessed an applicant’s needs as satisfying the criteria laid down in s21(1)(a), the local authority is under a duty to provide accommodation on a continuing basis so long as the need of the applicant remains as originally assessed, and if, for whatever reason, the accommodation, once provided, is withdrawn or otherwise becomes unavailable to the applicant, then (subject to any negative reassessment of the applicant’s needs) the local authority has a continuing duty to provide further accommodation. That said, however, the duty of the local authority is not absolute in the sense that it has a duty willy-nilly to provide such accommodation regardless of the applicant’s willingness to take advantage of it.

31. In this connection there are two realities to be recognised. First, the duty to provide accommodation is predicated upon the co-operation of the applicant in the sense of his willingness to occupy it on such terms and in accordance with such requirements as the local authority may reasonably impose in relation to its occupation. The second, and connected, reality is that the resources of the local authority are finite and that, in providing accommodation for the needy, save in rare cases where individual or special accommodation may be necessary and available to meet the special needs of a particular applicant, the accommodation may, and will usually be, provided within multi-occupied premises, whether in the form of flats, or hostel or bed and breakfast accommodation, in relation to which it will be reasonable for the local authority to lay down certain requirements as to the use of such accommodation and the activities to be permitted in it, whether from a health and safety point of view, or for the purpose of preventing injury, nuisance or annoyance to fellow occupiers of the premises.

32. Thus it seems to me that, when the circumstances warrant, if an applicant assessed as in need of Part III accommodation either unreasonably refuses to accept the accommodation provided or if, following its provision, by his conduct he manifests a persistent and unequivocal refusal to observe the reasonable requirements of the local authority in relation to the occupation of such accommodation, then the local authority is entitled to treat its duty as discharged and to refuse to provide further accommodation. That will remain the position unless or until, upon some subsequent application, the applicant can satisfy the local authority that his needs remain such as to justify provision of Part III accommodation and that there is no longer reason to think that he will persist in his refusal to observe the reasonable requirements of the local authority in respect of the provision of such accommodation.

33. In formulating the right of the local authority to treat its duty as discharged by conduct as requiring manifestation of persistent and unequivocal refusal, rather than a single transgression, I have in mind the following matters which were urged upon us by Mr Gordon as part of his submission that the duty of providing Part III accommodation is unqualified and absolute. The provisions of section 21 of the 1948 Act as amended are ‘safety net’ provisions designed to assist the poorest and most needy members of society, at rock bottom as it were. For a variety of reasons of personal and social disadvantage, they may well be persons who find difficulty complying with the norms of social behaviour or self control, while falling outside the specific areas of need catered for by other provision within the Community Care Services or under housing legislation. To create a class consisting of a substantial number of persons outside the scope even of the minimum requirements of the safety net provisions cannot lightly be contemplated. To withdraw Part III accommodation in respect of persons with such needs is likely to reduce such persons to living and sleeping on the streets; not only does it tend to defeat the overall purpose of the 1948 Act as well as Community Care, but it produces the socially undesirable effect of increasing rather than alleviating deprivation and encourages return to the practice of begging in the streets

34. In the particular case of a genuine refugee who is homeless while awaiting resolution of his claim for asylum (and, as already indicated, there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of Mr Kujtim’s claim) the effect of a refusal to supply Part III accommodation despite the existence of need is to remove from him basic food and shelter in a situation where, upon recognition of his claim, he would be entitled to receive the usual benefits available to British citizens in a position of hardship and unemployment; further, in the case of an applicant who is unwell, there may result damage to health, or in extreme cases threat to life, as a result of his being put out on the streets.

35. The existence of those considerations makes it essential that local authorities should reach the conclusion that their duty to supply Part III accommodation is discharged in respect of any particular applicant only after being satisfied of his persistent and unequivocal refusal to comply with the local authority’s requirements, coupled with a careful consideration of his current needs and circum stances. Either or both may involve consideration of any relevant medical condition or infirmity known to the local authority. Before concluding that there has been such refusal, it will plainly be desirable for a local authority to write a letter of final warning of the kind written by the respondents to the applicant in this case. As to the question of current need, the instant case provides a good example of why a re-consideration of need is essential. Had the respondents been aware, as they were not when they reached their decision, that the behaviour of the applicant in failing to observe their requirements to obey local hostel rules and to comply with the warning given to him by letter following his first expulsion, was the product of a depressive condition associated with the very ill-treatment which had driven him to seek refuge in this country, it seems unlikely that they would have treated his actions as manifesting a persistent and unequivocal refusal to comply with their requirements. However, they were entirely unaware of his medical condition and, in those circumstances, cannot be blamed for ignoring it.