Supreme Court agrees to hear cases on homeless applicants and eviction

The Supreme Court is to hear two conjoined cases on the eviction of homeless applicants accommodated pending enquiries and whether authorities are first required to seek possession orders.

The cases of R (CN) v London Borough of Lewisham and R (ZH) v London Borough of Newham concern occupants given temporary accommodation while enquiries were made as to whether a duty was owed under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.

At issue is whether the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Mohammed v Manek and Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea [1995] 27 HLR 439 remains good law.

The Court of Appeal in Manek ruled that this temporary accommodation did not fall to be protected under s. 3(2B) of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977.

Lewisham and Newham have both sought to rely on the Manek case in CN and ZH respectively to recover possession of the properties without having obtained a county court order first.

The appellants sought judicial review, arguing that Manek could not stand in the light of the Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling on proportionality in Pinnock and Powell.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellants’ case, saying that possession proceedings were not required before evicting someone accommodated pending enquiries under s. 188(1) and s. 190(2) of the 1996 Act.

The Supreme Court has now given the appellants permission to appeal. The appellants will be represented by Andrew Arden QC and Toby Vanhegan of Arden Chambers.

For more background, see: The eviction of homeless applicants accommodated pending inquiries by Vaughan Jacob