Court of appeal upholds judgment housing is unlawful

Court of appeal upholds judgment housing is unlawful

Rhi Storer - Local Democracy Reporter | Monday 9th May 2022 3:24pm

The court of appeal has upheld a ruling that Birmingham city council had operated an unlawful system for providing temporary accommodation. 

In a landmark judgement (May 4), Lord Justice Lewis, who presided over the appeal case, dismissed Birmingham city council’s challenge to the original judgement, and reasserted the conclusion that the council was “in breach” of Section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996.

Last April, a high court judge ruled the council “had been operating an unlawful system for the performance of its main housing duty” under the Housing Act 1996 by leaving tenants in unsuitable housing while the council looked for alternative accommodation.

The judgement was brought forward by four claimants. At the time, all claimants were living in temporary accommodation which Birmingham city council acknowledged was unsuitable, but had nonetheless remained for more than a year.

Each of the claimants had at some point been placed on the council’s ‘planned move list’, without a realistic time frame of how long they would be expected to wait for suitable accommodation. 

One claimant, Mr Elkundi, suffered from osteoarthritis. He and his family had been living in temporary accommodation since 2015, which was spread over two floors. The High Court heard the family had to climb four flights of external stairs to reach the entrance. 

In January 2020, a review officer employed at the council confirmed to Mr Elkundi his accommodation was unsuitable on mobility grounds. He was told he had been placed on Birmingham’s “planned move list” and told to wait.

Another claimant, Mr Ahmed, was a single parent who lived with his seven children. Two were identified as severely disabled. The family was placed in three-bedroom temporary accommodation in March 2019, but was so overcrowded that four of the children shared one bedroom. 

At the time, the high court heard Mr Ahmed was forced to postpone necessary surgery for his disabled daughter because she would be unable to safely recover in the temporary accommodation. 

Similar to Mr Elkundi, a review officer wrote to Mr Ahmed stating his accommodation was unsuitable on the basis of overcrowding, and was told that he would be placed on the “planned move list” but was not given further details.

Mrs Ross, the third claimant, had multiple complex disabilities and required accommodation that would allow her to use her powered wheelchair. Birmingham city council placed her in a temporary two-bedroom bungalow.

While the council offered a secure tenancy to Mrs Ross in light of adaptations to the property, in October 2020, the review officer notified Mrs Ross that the accommodation was “unsuitable”.

The final claimant, Mr Al Shameri, lived with his wife and six children, one of whom is severely disabled, in two-bedroom accommodation since 2006. In 2018, Mr Al-Shameri applied to the council as a homeless person seeking housing assistance, but opted to live at the accommodation.

At the time while the council accepted it owed Mr Al Shameri alternative accommodation, he was not offered such until Mr Al Shameri’s solicitors sent a letter alleging a breach of the Housing Act 1996. 

In response, the council offered a three bedroom second floor flat, which Mr Al Shameri refused due to access problems for his disabled child. Following a request to review the suitability of the flat, the council determined that it was suitable.

However, Lord Justice Lewis found that the original judgement was “correctly held”. 

Lord Justice Lewis concluded: “The conclusion that Birmingham was in breach of its section 193(2) duty in three of the cases in this appeal was the result of the fact that Birmingham had already accepted that the respondents’ current accommodation was unsuitable. 

“The system operated by Birmingham of placing persons to whom the section 193(2) duty was owed on a waiting list until suitable accommodation became available was unlawful.”

A Birmingham city council spokesperson said: “We take our responsibilities very seriously and are considering the judgement carefully. We are very sorry for the distress caused to the tenants in this case. 

“Access to affordable housing in the city is very limited and the private rented sector is very expensive –  in Birmingham only 15% of private sector housing rents fall within the local housing allowance rate so are out of reach for many of our households. 

“When it comes to tackling homelessness, Birmingham city council’s objective is to be very prevention focused to avoid homelessness in the first place. However, given the current national housing crisis and the pressures we are faced with  –  alongside other high need areas – we are experiencing exceptionally high levels of demand, which makes this incredibly difficult. 

“Where bed and breakfasts and hotels are used, we aim to provide further support particularly with a view to enabling prompt move on and bespoke support for families. In the meantime we will be taking steps to immediately prioritise those who have been found to be occupying unsuitable accommodation.”

More News Headlines