Defendants under duty to offer claimant accommodation under Part VII of Housing Act 1996 — Defendants offering settled accommodation — Claimant refusing on ground that settled accommodation was anathema to her gypsy status — Whether defendants discharging their duty under section 193 — Whether defendants breaching claimant’s rights under Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights
The claimant, who was a gypsy, temporarily occupied the defendant council’s land on the understanding that they would provide her with a more suitable and permanent caravan site. In 2002, the defendants offered the claimant a house that would serve as temporary accommodation until such time as a suitable campsite could be found. However, if the claimant chose to refuse the offer, the council would commence eviction proceedings. The claimant rejected the accommodation on the ground that it would be alien to her culture and lifestyle.
The defendants confirmed their intention to evict the claimant, relying upon Clarke v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2002] EWCA Civ 819; [2002] JPL 1365, which held that a “settled and immutable antipathy to conventional housing rooted in gypsy culture” made the offer of such housing unsuitable. The defendants concluded that the claimant did not possess the requisite “settled and immutable antipathy” because she had previously applied for settled accommodation, and because members of her family occupied such accommodation. The claimant challenged that decision, arguing that the offer of the house was not a proper discharge of the defendants’ duty to her under section 193 of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.
Held: The claim was allowed.
The evidence demonstrated that the defendants had given special consideration to the claimant’s status as a gypsy, in line with Chapman v United Kingdom 27238/95 (2001) 33 EHRR 18. It also showed that the evaluation had been sympathetic and detailed; but it was not free from error. The defendants’ decision had no proper evidential basis. They had failed to accord respect to the claimant’s Article 8 rights, which implied a positive obligation on the part of a public authority to facilitate the gypsy way of life; it should be noted, however, that such duty was not so extensive as to constitute a guarantee.
The defendants had erred in concluding that since the claimant had at one point demonstrated a willingness to abandon her gypsy lifestyle, they were entitled to totally disregard her way of life. Varying degrees of aversion to conventional housing were possible, based upon the particular circumstances of a case. Although circumstances might have compelled the claimant to reluctantly contemplate the need to abandon her traditional way of life at one time, such a view was not necessarily valid at some future date, and should not form the cornerstone of a decision. Although it may be relevant that members of her family were willing to abandon their traditional way of life, that was not an indication of the applicant’s own viewpoint.
Stephen Knafler (instructed by Community Law Partnership, of Birmingham) appeared for the claimant; Timothy Mould (instructed by the solicitor to Carmarthenshire County Council) appeared for the defendants.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
