20.47Nzolameso v City of Westminster [2015] UKSC 22, (2015) 18 CCLR 201
Housing authorities had to consider their duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when assessing what accommodation would be suitable for a homeless family
Facts: Ms Nzolameso, a Westminster residents who had five young children, became unintentionally homeless. Westminster offered her accommodation in Milton Keynes then discharged its duty towards her, when she refused to accept it.
Judgment: the Supreme Court (Hale, Clarke, Reed, Hughes and Toulson JJSC) held that Westminster had acted unlawfully insofar as it had failed properly to assess and have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children, in breach of section 11 of the Children Act 2004, and insofar as it had failed properly to consider what accommodation closer to Westminster it might offer, if accommodation in Westminster was not available. As far as concerned the future:
39. Ideally, each local authority should have, and keep up to date, a policy for procuring sufficient units of temporary accommodation to meet the anticipated demand during the coming year. That policy should, of course, reflect the authority’s statutory obligations under both the 1996 Act and the Children Act 2004. It should be approved by the democratically accountable members of the council and, ideally, it should be made publicly available. Secondly, each local authority should have, and keep up to date, a policy for allocating those units to individual homeless households. Where there was an anticipated shortfall of ‘in borough’ units, that policy would explain the factors which would be taken into account in offering households those units, the factors which would be taken into account in offering units close to home, and if there was a shortage of such units, the factors which would make it suitable to accommodate a household further away. That policy too should be made publicly available.