23.03.15
Supreme Court ruling could affect councils housing people far afield
The Supreme Court has overturned a decision by Westminster City Council to house a resident out of the borough, in a ruling likely to have wide implications for local authorities.
The court unanimously upheld an appeal from Titina Nzolameso, a single mother who had lived in the Westminster for four years in a four bedroom home, relying on housing benefit to pay her rent. Following the reduction of her housing benefit in 2012, she could no longer afford to live there and she and her five children became homeless.
Westminster Council was obliged to provide her with alternative accommodation under the Housing Act 1996, and offered her a temporary place in a five-bed house in Bletchley, close to Milton Keynes in Buckinghamshire. She refused, saying that the proposed property was too far away from her children’s schools and her support network in Westminster.
The authority refused to provide any further help, insisting that it had discharged its statutory duty to offer her council accommodation.
Nzolameso pressed for a review of the council’s decision, questioning the claim that the house in Bletchley was suitable for her and the council’s claim that the offer meant they had met their statutory obligations.
The review, county court and Court of Appeal all found in favour of the council.
When the Court of Appeal ruled in the council’s favour Lord Justice Moore-Bick said that if he had found in favour of the appellant it would have “put local housing authorities in an impossible position”.
But now the Supreme Court has overturned the decision, however it has not yet published its full judgement. In a statement it said: “Given the need for arrangements to be made for the family involved, the court is making its decision known immediately, with reasons to follow in due course.”
Responding to the decision, Daniel Astaire, Westminster City Council’s cabinet member for housing, said: “We are extremely disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case, the full implications of which will not be clear until the court hands down its detailed decision. We will continue to take into account the full range of considerations when finding suitable and affordable accommodation for those in housing need, whether within Westminster or out of borough. In the case of this family, we will continue to house them together in a suitable location.”
While the full implications of the ruling will not be understood until the judgement is published Cllr Astaire previously said that if the council’s decision was overturned it would force local authorities to “disregard the needs of others higher up the waiting lists” or who had a “more pressing need” to stay in the area.
He added it would have also “required councils to scour every neighbouring borough until they found an available property – whether or not it was suitable – imposing an unreasonable burden on local authority resources”.
The Department for Communities and Local Government said: “While we await the full judgment on this specific case, we have always recognised that some councils may find it necessary to place households in another area.”
(Image source: UK Supreme Court)
Tell us what you think – have your say below or email [email protected]