Ref. Sharif v Camden London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 463
The above court case has seen the London Borough Council for Camden pursue a strongly held belief that an offer of accommodation in two adjacent, but self-contained, flats was sufficient to discharge its duty under s. 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 in securing accommodation available for occupation by the applicant.
In this case, the local authority offered accommodation for the applicant, her younger sister and her father in two separate, self contained flats residing on the same floor of the building, but with no communal areas. This offer was refused by the applicant on the grounds that her father was ill and they needed to live together in one unit of accommodation so that care may be provided.
The council notified the applicant that under s. 193(5) of the Act they had discharged their duty by offering, and having refused, suitable accommodation. No further offers would therefore follow.
In the first instance the applicant’s appeal to the County Court was rejected, but the Court of Appeal found in the applicant’s favour and rejected the council’s view.
The Judge in this instance, Lord Justice Etherton, concluded that the applicant and her father could not be classed as living ‘together with’ one another, as dictated by s. 176 of the Act, under the terms offered by the council.
It was also rejected that it was the council’s authority to decide, under the Wednesbury test, as to the suitability of accommodation.
The Supreme Court has since granted permission for the Council to appeal and a final answer will soon be announced. Should Camden Council triumph, it could mean greater resource allocation flexibility for councils to provide accommodation to homeless applicants. Observers are suggesting that many councils will welcome such an outcome.