Housing needs — Applicant in accommodation as secure shorthold tenant for one year — Damage to premises — Applicant acknowledging damage to premises caused by her children — Landlord refusing to allow her to return after repairs to premises — Council finding her intentionally homeless — Finding of intentional homelessness challenged — Application for judicial review dismissed
The applicant, W, lived in accommodation at 143 Charter Street, Chatham, Kent, at a rent of £65 per week under an assured shorthold furnished tenancy granted for 12 months from October 1 1991. The effect of that tenancy was to give her security of tenure for at least a year and the potentional of the tenancy continuing thereafter. In early 1992, she complained to the council of the poor condition of the premises as a result of which the council served a notice on the landlord to repair.
The landlord informed the council subsequently that the applicant, who lived with her four children, had told him that she would prefer to leave 143 Charter Street and that she did not mind where she lived, as the council would have to house her and her children. After that conversation, the landlord maintained extensive damage to the house and its furniture and fittings began to occur. The applicant wrote to her landlord taking full responsibility for a long list of damages on August 7 1992 and she also later told the council that her children had caused much of the damage. She then vacated the premises for the repairs to take place and the landlord notified her that he would not be granting her a new tenancy after the repairs were completed. The council accommodated the applicant and children while the works proceeded. The council concluded that her failure to take adequate steps to prevent the damage was deliberate and wrote to her that they had come to the conclusion that she was intentionally homeless. The applicant appealed.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The council were correct in deciding that her homelessness began from when the landlord informed her that he would not allow her to return to 143 Charter Street. There was no justification for her contention that the council should have disregarded her assured shorthold tenancy of that property and gone back to her departure from her previous secure tenancy as the start of her homelessness.
2. By the time the council reached their decision, which the applicant wished to impugn, they could reasonably take the view that the landlord had decided not to renew the tenancy because of the damage caused by her children to the property, which she had acknowledged as her responsibility. It was reasonable to conclude that it was so extensive that it had resulted from her deliberate failure to control her children.
3. With regard to the council’s alleged duty to secure permanent accommodation, the court took that view that the applicant, as tenant of premises under an assured shorthold tenancy of potentially infinite duration (see section 5 of the Housing Act 1988), had no claim to relief on the ground of homelessness simply on the basis that she was not as secure as she would be if provided with a council tenancy. Her present assured shorthold tenancy of a house in Chatham was for a minimum of 12 months and was similarly extendable. If she faced homelessness again she could then look to the council to accommodate her pursuant to the Housing Act 1985.
Lorna Tagliavini (instructed by Graham & Williams Rose Colley, of Chatham) for the applicant; Gerald Rabie (instructed by the solicitor to Rochester upon Medway City Council) appeared for the housing authority.
