Supreme Court set to rule on meaning of "available for occupation"

The Supreme Court is expected to rule tomorrow on the meaning of the term ‘available for occupation’ in section 176 of the Housing Act 1996.

In the case of Sharif v The London Borough of Camden, the appellant council was under a statutory duty, pursuant to Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, to secure suitable accommodation for the respondent ‘together with’ her elderly father and school-age sister (‘the family’).

In November 2009 Camden offered the family temporary accommodation at two separate flats located several yards apart on the same floor of a hostel. One of the flats could accommodate two people; the other could accommodate one person.

However, the Respondent refused the council’s offer on the basis that it comprised two separate units and due to her father’s medical conditions the family should be able to live together in a single unit.

Camden argued that the offered accommodation was suitable. It accordingly notified the respondent that, as a result of her refusal of the offer, the council’s full housing duty had come to an end by operation of section 193(5) of the 1996 Act.

HHJ Mitchell dismissed the respondent’s appeal against the council’s decision. But the Court of Appeal subsequently allowed her appeal, holding that the offer of two separate flats was not accommodation which the respondent and her father were to occupy ‘together with’ one another within the meaning of section 176 of the Act.

Lord Justice Etherton concluded that Camden's approach amounted to a judicial modification of Parliament's policy.

Should Camden win at the Supreme Court, it is expected to give local authorities greater latitude to manage their resources.