In Ibrahim v London Borough of Haringey and another [2022] EW Misc 9 (CC), the County Court has warned local authorities and other suppliers of temporary accommodation to consider the legal implications of the agreements they enter into with each other and the ultimate occupiers of temporary accommodation.
The claimant was an asylum seeker who was street homeless at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. His immigration status rendered him ineligible for statutory homelessness assistance under part VII of the Housing Act 1996. He was, however, eligible to be accommodated under the “Everyone In” initiative, which required local authorities to provide temporary accommodation to rough sleepers during the first national lockdown.
The London Borough of Haringey (the council) was the relevant local authority responsible for accommodating the claimant. The council, through its arm’s length management company, Homes for Haringey (HfH), arranged to accommodate the claimant in temporary accommodation through its out of hours temporary accommodation provider Capital Homes Services Ltd (Capital) – the second defendant.
On 12 May 2020 the claimant was allocated flat 41 in The Hub – premises managed by Capital and owned by a third party. On arrival to the Hub the claimant signed a pro-form document (the pro-forma document) used for temporary accommodation provided under part VII of the 1996 Act. The next day an employee of HfH contacted the claimant to inform him that due to his immigration status he would not be eligible for homelessness assistance under the 1996 Act.
On 14 May 2020, HFH attempted to move the claimant into a room secured at a hotel. The claimant refused to move. The claimant, through his solicitors, asserted that he was either a tenant or a licensee of the flat and enjoyed security of tenure under the Housing Act 1985. In the alternative the claimant asserted that he was an assured shorthold tenant under the Housing Act 1988 and could not be evicted without a court order.
On 18 May 2020 the claimant applied for, and obtained, a without notice injunction prohibiting his exclusion from the flat. The application was subsequently dismissed and the interim injunction discharged at the return hearing. The claimant vacated the flat on 22 May 2020. He then issued a claim for damages against the council and Capital for unlawful eviction and harassment.
Relying on the pro-forma document, the claimant alleged that he had entered into a contract to occupy the flat with either the council or Capital; the consideration for which was the nightly charge payable. Both the Council and Capital denied that they had entered into legal relations with the claimant. The court agreed.
In dismissing the claim the court found firstly, the claimant was not required to pay the nightly charges and therefore the claim in contract failed for want of any consideration. Secondly, although the pro-forma document used the language of an “agreement” the context in which it was used fell short of any intention to create legal relations. It was a template document to be used when the person being assisted fell within the homelessness provisions of Part VII of the 1996 Act and the claimant did not fall within those provisions.
Thirdly, the claimant did not occupy the flat as a licensee within the meaning of section 79 of the 1985 Act because he did not occupy the flat as a “dwelling” under section 79(3). The claimant was not being provided with a home but temporary shelter in emergency circumstances.
The claimant’s claim in tort also failed. The court found that a court order to recover possession of the flat was not required as the claimant did not have the protection afforded by the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. Additionally on the facts there was no evidence that he had been unlawfully evicted or harassed. The claimant voluntarily left the flat when the interim injunction was discharged.
Elizabeth Dwomoh is a barrister at Lamb Chambers
