Appellant living in illegally parked caravan — Caravan stolen while appellant absent — Whether loss of caravan amounting to emergency so as to activate rehousing provision in section 189(1)(d) Housing Act 1996 — Appeal dismissed
The appellant’s caravan, which had been illegally sited on council land, was stolen while he was walking his dogs. He made a formal application to the respondent authority for housing as a homeless person under section 189(1)(d) of the Housing Act 1996, which provides that a person who is homeless “as a result of an emergency such as flood, fire or other disaster” has a priority need for accommodation. The application was refused, and the court found for the respondents on the ground that the loss of the caravan was not an “emergency” within the meaning of the section. The appellant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
The loss of the appellant’s home fell within the provisions of section 189(1)(d) of the Act in that its sudden and unexpected loss, wholly outside of his control, was an emergency for the purposes of the section. On that basis, the appeal would have succeeded. However, section 175(2)(b) of the Act defined a homeless person as, inter alia, one “who lives in a caravan and has no place where he is entitled to locate his caravan and to reside in it”. Since that was the appellant’s position prior to the loss of his home, for the purposes of the appeal his homelessness was not caused by the loss of the caravan, and the provisions for rehousing contained in section 189 were not activated.
David Watkinson (instructed by Brighton Housing Trust) appeared for the appellant; Clare Roberts (instructed by the solicitor to Brighton & Hove City Council) appeared for the respondents.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
