Applicant for homelessness assistance lodges bid to take out-of-borough placement dispute to Supreme Court

The issues in A v London Borough of Enfield in particular are:

• Does the scope of an appeal to the County Court under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 include a breach of the duty under section 208(2) and (4) to notify the host borough of an out of borough placement?
• In circumstances where a housing applicant cannot be accommodated with their district, what is the extent of the local authority’s obligation under section 208 to secure accommodation that is as close as reasonably practicable to the applicant’s former home?

The background to the case is that while the appellant ("A") was living in Enfield, she was the victim of domestic abuse perpetrated by her ex-partner, MB.

A was badly assaulted in 2022 and MB was subsequently convicted on three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was given a custodial sentence of 20 months and was the subject of a restraining order for 5 years.

In August 2022, A applied to Enfield for homelessness assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.

In November 2022, the council notified A that it accepted that it owed her a duty to secure accommodation under section 193 of the 1996 Act as a person with priority need who became homeless unintentionally.

A did not wish to be accommodated in Enfield due to her fear of violence at the hands of MB, and his family and friends.

In April 2023, Enfield offered A temporary accommodation in Studio B, which is located in the neighbouring London Borough of Haringey and is approximately 1 ½ miles from Enfield.

A accepted the offer and moved in but requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation under section 202 of the 1996 Act.

In a review decision in July 2023, Enfield concluded that Studio B was suitable accommodation.

In November 2023, Enfield notified Haringey that A had been accommodated in its district.

In August 2024, the County Court allowed A’s appeal against the review decision and quashed that decision.

Enfield appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal in a judgment handed down in October 2025.

Lord Justice Lewison suggested the case made against the council was “a prime example of the judicialisation of welfare services” and found Enfield did not breach its statutory duty or placement policy for applicant A.

A has applied for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The application for permission to appeal will be heard by Lord Sales, Lord Burrows and Lady Rose.