The claimant applied to the defendant local housing authority as a homeless person on 26 March 2019 and was provided with temporary accommodation under section 188(1) of the Housing Act 1996. The performance of the interim housing duty under section 188(1) and the relief duty under section 189B(2) was subsequently referred to another housing authority, on the basis that the claimant had a local connection with that other authority’s area but not with the defendant’s area. The other authority accepted the referral in August 2019 and the defendant informed the claimant that it owed him no further housing duties. On 23 August the claimant was served with a notice to terminate his accommodation on 2 September. However, the claimant refused to leave the accommodation and opposed the defendant’s attempts to evict him. In October, by which time the clamiant had been in the temporary accommodation for more than six months, the claimant sought to make a second homelessness application to the defendant citing an alleged change in his circumstances, namely that he had established a local connection through residence. The defendant refused to accept the second application, taking the view that it was based on exactly the same facts as the earlier application.
On the claimant’s claim for judicial review of that decision—
Held, claim dismissed. At the time of the new application the only alleged new fact was that the claimant by then had resided in the temporary accommodation for more than six months and that for that reason had a local connection to the defendant’s area. However, he had been in unlawful occupation of the property since 2 September 2019 and had made a decision to remain there in order to gain six months occupation. The defendant had owed him no housing duty from the time that the other authority had accepted the referral. In the circumstances, the simple passing of time and the unlawful occupation of the accommodation could not amount to a new fact for the purposes of a new homelessness application under the Housing Act 1996. The claimant did not have a local connection with the defendant’s district but had one with the district of the authority which had accepted the referral. The new application was wholly fanciful because the claimant’s refusal to leave the accommodation, as he was required to, and to engage with the defendant was tantamount to a manipulation of the homeless statutory regime. If such conduct were permissible any person in similar circumstances without a local connection who was dissatisfied with a referral decision would be able to frustrate the referral system by refusing to leave until such time as he had resided for six months in one area (paras 44–46).
Toby Vanhegan (instructed by GT Stewart Solicitors) for the claimant.
Nicholas Grundy QC (instructed by Cambridge City Council, Cambridge) for the defendant.