.
Council’s bid to rehouse single mother 50 miles away ruled unlawful
The Supreme Court has found against Westminster Council in a case ([2015] UKSC 22, 2 April 2015) in which the council argued it was lawful to accommodate a homeless person over 50 miles away from the borough due to the shortage of suitable accommodation locally.
Titina Nzolameso, a single mother of five with health problems, was evicted from her private rented accommodation due to rent arrears caused by the benefits cap. Westminster Council accepted her as homeless, but said it could only offer her accommodation near Milton Keynes.
The court found that the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 SI No 2601, combined with supplementary guidance on homelessness which had been issued by the government, meant that the previous interpretation of the statutory duty to accommodate homeless people should be overturned. The court also considered other factors including the children’s welfare. Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, gave the only judgment in the case.
Jayesh Kunwardia, partner at Hodge Jones and Allen, acted for the client. Commenting on the case to LAG he said: ‘The trend historically of placing vulnerable homelessness applicants out of district without careful consideration of available housing stock in borough or closer to borough will now be deemed unlawful.’ Kunwardia believes the judgment ‘changes the legal landscape’ regarding out-of-borough placement, as important factors, such as employment, caring responsibilities and education, now have to be carefully considered in the local authority’s decision-making process.
•Judgment in the case considering the lawfulness of the benefits cap was given in March by the Supreme Court, almost a year after the hearing. The case ([2015] UKSC 16, 18 March 2015) was brought by a number of appellants to test the legality of the cap which limits payments of housing benefit to £500 a week in London and £375 elsewhere. The Child Poverty Action Group and Shelter also intervened.
The court was split three to two on whether the benefits cap put the UK government in breach of its obligations under article 14 (which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sex) and article 3(1) of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child. Lady Hale and Lord Kerr were in the minority in finding against the government.
CPAG director Alison Garnham said: ‘The women and children involved in this case were escaping horrific abuse. As three of the judges have said, “It cannot be in the best interests of the children affected by the cap to deprive them of the means of having adequate food, clothing, warmth and housing.” We hope the government will listen to the court and comply with international law on the protection of children.’