Manchester City Council v Moran and Another; Richards v Ipswich Borough Council: CA 17 Apr 2008

The two applicants had occupied a women’s refuge. They appealed against a refusal to consider them as homeless when they acted in such a way as to be evicted from the refuge, saying that the refuge did not constitute ‘accommodation . . which it would have been reasonable for [them] to continue to occupy’. It was said for the Women’s Refuge movement that a decsion that a refuge was appropriate housing would disable the system because authorities would lose the obligation to house women.
Held: Women’s refuges no longer operated as in Sidhu: ‘where the enquiry is whether it would be (or, as in the present cases, would have been) reasonable for a woman to continue to occupy a refuge as opposed to other accommodation, particular matters fall to be considered in addition to the general matters which fall to be considered in any enquiry under s.175(3) or s.191(1) of the Act.’ The reviewing officer could not reasonably have come to any other decision.


[2008] EWCA Civ 378, Times 20-May-2008, [2008] 1 WLR 2387




Housing Act 1996 175 193, Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003


England and Wales


CitedRegina v London Borough of Ealing Ex parte Sidhu 2-Jan-1982
The applicant, in flight from domestic violence, had gone with her two young children, to stay in a women’s refuge. The local authority argued that she was not homeless because she had accommodation available to her in the refuge.
Held: The . .
CitedRe M (A Minor) (Care Orders: Threshold Conditions) HL 7-Jun-1994
The father had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the child’s mother. Application was made for the child to be made subject to a care order. The father appealed refusal of an order.
Held: When an application was made on the . .
CitedDin (Taj) v Wandsworth London Borough Council HL 26-Nov-1981
The appellants had applied for emergency housing as homeless persons, anticipating loss of their secure accomodation after falling into arrears. The Council reject their application, but a County Court quashed that decision. The Court of Appeal . .
CitedRegina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua HL 6-Jul-1995
The term ‘Accommodation’ in the Act was to be read to include short term lettings, and was not to be restricted to secure accommodation, and the loss of such accommodation can be counted as intentional homelessness. If a person who had been provided . .
CitedRegina v Hillingdon London Borough Council Ex parte Puhlhofer HL 2-Jan-1986
Not Homeless Even if Accomodation Inadequate
The applicants, a married couple, lived with a young child and later also a baby in one room of a guest house. They were given breakfast but had no cooking or washing facilities. They succeeded on a judicial review of the housing authority’s . .
CitedRegina v Waveney District Council ex parte Bowers 25-May-1982
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision that he was not homeless under section 1 of the Act. For 15 months he had been using a night shelter in Lowestoft. It was an unheated dormitory in a derelict building. It was empty and closed . .
CitedBirmingham City Council v Aweys and others CA 7-Feb-2008
If accommodation is not reasonable for a person to occupy, it is not suitable for him. Arden LJ said: ‘homelessness is a large social problem directly and substantially affecting the lives of many people in the UK, and those who depend on them, . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromBirmingham City Council v Ali and Others; Moran v Manchester City Council HL 1-Jul-2009
Homelessness Status Requires LA Action
The House considered appeals challenging whether local authorities who gave unacceptable housing to the homeless had satisfied their obligations to them as homeless people. What was meant by the phrase ‘accommodation which it would be reasonable for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266959