Rogerson v Wigan Metropolican Borough Council: QBD 14 Jul 2004

The claimant sought damages under the 1977 Act. The defendant said it had behaved lawfully. He had been housed in a hostel pending a decision on the application for permanent housing as a homeless person, which the defendant said excluded him from protection under the 1977 Act.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed.
Auld LJ said: ‘the solution to this issue rests upon the proper meaning to be given to the concept of ‘a separate and self-contained set of premises’. I do not think that it can simply mean physically separate and self-contained, for two reasons. First, if residential accommodation is provided in self contained premises then they must perforce be physically separated from the rest of the block of accommodation. So the concept of ‘separate’ must be directed to some other aspect. Second, the notion of separate accommodation more naturally, in my view, is referring to accommodation which is separate for each person (with or without a partner). It is not appropriate to describe someone as being in separate accommodation if they are being compelled to share some of the facilities with someone they have not chosen. The separate bedroom does not amount to separate residential accommodation. In this case nobody was in fact required to share the accommodation whilst the appellant was there, but Mr Stark, in my opinion rightly, accepted that this was irrelevant. The potential to require sharing was no different to actual sharing.’


Elias J


[2005] 2 All ER 1000, [2004] EWHC 1677 (QB), [2005] HLR 10, [2004] 2 PandCR DG21, [2005] BLGR 549




Protection from Eviction Act 1977, Housing Act 1985 622, Housing Act 1996


England and Wales


CitedMohamed v Manek and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea CA 28-Apr-1995
The claimant applied to the Council for accommodation, claiming to be homeless and in priority need. The council housed him in a hotel owned by Mr Manek in Tooting Bec . He had a room, a separate bathroom and lavatory, and shared use of a kitchen. . .
CitedBrennan v London Borough of Lambeth CA 3-Jun-1997
The appellant sought to resist his eviction from temporary hostel accomodation provided to him by the local authority, saying that the provisions of the 1977 Act protected him.
Held: The agreement was a licence excluded from protection by the . .

Cited by:

CitedZH and CN, Regina (on The Applications of) v London Boroughs of Newham and Lewisham SC 12-Nov-2014
The court was asked whether the 1977 Act required a local authorty to obtain a court order before taking possession of interim accommodation it provided to an apparently homeless person while it investigated whether it owed him or her a duty under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 28 March 2022; Ref: scu.269952