Denton v LB Southwark [2007] EWCA Civ 623 and Osei v LB Southwark [2007] EWCA Civ 787

In two recent decisions, Denton v LB Southwark [2007] EWCA Civ 623 and Osei v LB Southwark [2007] EWCA Civ 787, the Court of Appeal upheld decisions by the Local Authority that the applicants were ‘intentionally homeless’ within the meaning of s. 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996.

In Denton, the Court considered “intentionality” in the context of a young adult whose mother had asked him to leave the parental home because she could no longer control his bad behaviour.

Southwark took the view that Mr Denton had made himself intentionally homeless and found that it would have been reasonable for him to continue living with this mother. On appeal to the County Court, the judge quashed the decision.

Reinstating the Local Authority’s decision, the Court held that:
(i) all the circumstances of the case had to be considered;
(ii) even though there were significant differences between a family home and rented accommodation, nonetheless people living together had to show each other respect and this necessarily involved complying with any reasonable requests which one person makes to another. It was not unreasonable in the public law sense for Southwark to take into account that Mr Denton’s mother was entitled to expect appropriate behaviour and compliance with reasonable requests;
(iii) referring to R v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC ex p P (1989) 22 HLR 21, ‘reasonableness was to be determined by asking whether it would have been reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy the accommodation at a point in time before the deliberate acts which led to the loss of the accommodation took place’ (para. 25). What the Local Authority had to do, was to determine whether it was reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy premises, ignoring the acts and omissions for which the applicant herself or himself was responsible. Thus, in the present case, Mr Denton’s misbehaviour was not to be taken into consideration;
(iv) it was for the Local Authority to decide what inquiries to make and a Court would not intervene unless the decision of the Local Authority not to make further inquiries was perverse. It could not be said that Southwark's approach in this case failed to comply with public law principles.

In Osei, the Court held the Local Authority had been entitled to decide that the applicant was intentionally homeless where he had surrendered overcrowded accommodation in Spain for equally overcrowded accommodation in the United Kingdom.

Mr Osei was a Spanish citizen who had left his family in Madrid to find work in London. He brought his family to live with him in London and applied to Southwark for housing assistance. Southwark found that he was intentionally homeless because he had surrendered accommodation in Madrid that was available and reasonable for him to occupy. Southwark concluded that it was not reasonable for Mr Osei to bring his family to London because he was substituting his family home in Madrid for yet more unsatisfactory premises in London.

The Court held that Southwark had not committed an error of law in coming to this conclusion. Moreover, in considering whether it was reasonable for Mr Osei to continue to occupy accommodation, it was reasonable for Southwark to have regard to the general circumstances prevailing in relation to housing in its district pursuant to s. 177(2) of the Act.