A woman had been dismissed from employment for deliberate misconduct and had lost her tied accommodation. The council concluded that she had become intentionally homeless because she must have known that the consequence of her misconduct could be dismissal and the inevitable loss of her tied accommodation.
Held: The council’s approach was correct. What is involved in deciding whether or not the applicant is right is a decision as to remoteness. Some acts which a person does will lead indirectly to their becoming homeless, but if the acts are too remote from the consequence, then they will not render that person intentionally homeless. Other acts will be sufficiently proximate to render the person within the category of those who become homeless intentionally.
The correct interpretation of the words ‘in consequence’ in section 17(1) of the 1977 Act was that it raised a question of causation, and that the decision is to be made according to the remoteness of the actions.
Judges:
Woolf J
Citations:
(1981) 6 HLR 31, Times 25-Nov-1981
Statutes:
Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 17
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Hounslow ex parte R Admn 19-Feb-1997
The Applicant was 65 years old, with a history of criminal offences including serious sexual assaults on children. On release from prison, he presented himself as homeless. After his imprisonment, he had realised that he would be unable to keep up . .
Approved – Devenport v Salford City Council CA 1983
A possession order was made because of the misconduct of the tenants and their children. The council made a finding of intentional homelessness, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Held: For the purposes of the homelessness legislation, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.181071
