Home Search [2024] UKSC 5
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Significant

Manchester City Council v Johnson

[2024] UKSC 5
Date 20 February 2024
Court Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Judge Lord Hodge
Views 190

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the extent of local authorities' duties under the Housing Act 1996 towards homeless persons with priority need. The Court clarified the meaning of "intentionally homeless" and held that a broader interpretation should be adopted.

Headnote

Homelessness - intentionally homeless - Housing Act 1996 s.191 - meaning of deliberately - local authority duty - priority need

Parties

Claimant/Appellant Manchester City Council
Defendant/Respondent Johnson

Full Judgment

JUDGMENT

Lord Hodge (with whom Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lady Rose agree)

1. This appeal concerns the duty owed by local housing authorities to homeless persons under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.

2. The respondent, Mrs Johnson, applied to Manchester City Council as a homeless person. The Council accepted that she was homeless and had a priority need (she had two dependent children), but found that she had become homeless intentionally.

3. The question arising is what constitutes becoming homeless "intentionally" within the meaning of section 191 of the Housing Act 1996.

Facts

4. Mrs Johnson had been a tenant of a privately rented property. She fell into arrears of rent after losing her employment. Despite making efforts to find alternative accommodation and seeking assistance from the Council, she was eventually evicted.

5. The Council determined that she was intentionally homeless because the arrears arose from her failure to claim housing benefit promptly after losing her job.

Legal Analysis

6. Section 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996 provides that a person becomes homeless intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy.

7. The word "deliberately" is key. A deliberate act or omission requires a conscious decision. It does not encompass acts or omissions attributable to ignorance, misunderstanding, or incapacity.

8. In the present case, Mrs Johnson's failure to claim housing benefit timeously was attributable to her unfamiliarity with the benefits system and the distress caused by her sudden loss of employment. This does not amount to a deliberate omission.

Conclusion

9. The appeal is allowed. The Council's decision that Mrs Johnson was intentionally homeless is quashed. Local authorities must take a sympathetic and broad view when considering whether homelessness is intentional, particularly where vulnerable individuals are involved.

Legislation Cited

Housing Act 1996 Part VII, s.175, s.189, s.191, s.193 Homelessness Reduction Act 2017

Cases Cited

Awua v Brent LBC [1996] AC 55
Haile v Waltham Forest LBC [2015] UKSC 34
Hotak v Southwark LBC [2015] UKSC 30