Supreme Court quashes council decision over offer of housing 50 miles away

The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld an appeal by a homeless mother of five over a London borough’s offer of accommodation 50 miles away near Milton Keynes.

The Court heard oral submissions in Nzolameso v City of Westminster earlier this month (17 March).

It has now quashed Westminster City Council’s decision that it had properly discharged its duty to secure accommodation available for occupation by the appellant.

The judges decided to make their decision known immediately, given the need for arrangements to be made for the family involved. The Supreme Court will give its reasons in due course.

At issue in the case was:

1. What standard of review should be applied to the respondent local authority's exercise of its duty to secure accommodation for homeless persons in their district so far as "reasonably practicable";
2. Whether the local authority must provide an evidential basis to show that it has taken steps to give effect to this duty;
3. If it was not reasonably practicable for the respondent to secure accommodation in its district, whether it had to address whether or not to secure it closer to Westminster than it actually did.

The factual background to the case was that until November 2012 the appellant lived in a four-bedroom house in Westminster, paid for by housing benefit.

When the amount of housing benefit was reduced in 2012 the appellant became unable to afford the rent on her property and as a result she and her five children became homeless.

Westminster accepted that it owed her the main housing duty under s. 193 of the Housing Act 1996 and in January 2013 it offered her temporary, five-bedroom accommodation in Bletchley, near Milton Keynes.

The appellant refused on the grounds that she had lived in Westminster for more than four years and had many friends who provided her with emotional and practical support.

Westminster decided that it had discharged its duty and was no longer under a duty to make accommodation available to her.

The appellant asked for a review both of the decision that the house at Bletchley was suitable for her and of the decision that Westminster had discharged its duty to provide her with accommodation.

A review was carried out, but the reviewing officer upheld both decisions.

The appellant subsequently lost both in the Central London County Court and in the Court of Appeal.