Housing rights could be vote winner

The Supreme Court's decision earlier this month that Westminster City Council failed to comply with its duties under section 208 of the Housing Act 1996 when conducting a suitability of accommodation review in the case of Titina Nzolemeso
will have far-reaching consequences.

The appeal decided the key question of when is it lawful
for a local authority to accommodate a homeless person away from the authority's own area where the homeless person was previously living.

Nzolameso had applied
as homeless to Westminster Council in November 2002.
The council accepted a duty to house her and her five children and offered her accommodation in Milton Keynes. She did not accept the offer on the grounds of unsuitability; she had lived in Westminster for over four years, where she had many friends who provided her with support on account of her medical problems, and her children
were schooled in the borough.

Under the Housing Act 1996,
a council has a duty to find a suitable home for persons found to be in priority need and, in this instance, Westminster Council was obliged to undertake this task. Under section 208 of the Act it must go so far as 'reasonably practicable' in securing accommodation within
the applicant's district.

On 2 April 2015 the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
The finding of the court was
that 'there is little to suggest that serious consideration was given to the authority's obligations before the decision was taken to offer the property in Bletchley'.

The judgment will have a far wider impact on homelessness applicants across the UK, of which numbers are rising. They can certainly expect the suitability review letters they receive from councils to be clearer. Wording that can be copied and pasted onto a review letter simply will not suffice.

For councils, more information must be detailed in the suitability review letters they send out that an applicant can challenge and the Supreme Court has also ruled that council policy on this subject must be published so that the legality of it, in turn, may be challenged by way of judicial review.

This allocation policy should clearly outline the factors taken into account when placing applicants within the borough
or outside of the borough. The guidance issued by the Supreme Court also addresses the need to keep an up-to-date policy on procuring sufficient housing units which would ideally
also be made public.

The decision also changes the legal landscape on the issue of 'out of borough' placement policy in favour of homelessness applicants, with the essential need to carefully consider important factors like employment, caring responsibilities, education of
the person's household, and proximity and accessibility to
the applicant's support network, including local services, amenities, and transport.

In light of the introduction of the bedroom tax, the benefit cap, and large-scale unjustified cut backs to social council housing funding, the housing rights of the individual still stand firm. It's time for politicians to recognise this. SJ

Jayesh Kunwardia is a partner and head of social housing and property disputes at Hodge Jones and Allen. He successfully represented Titina Nzolameso in her action against Westminster Council

@hodgejonesallen