|Today the Supreme Court announced its decision on the most important case on homelessness in decades laying down clear guidance for assessing who is vulnerable and in priority need.
This landmark case is significant for homeless people with disabilities and will improve their housing rights through the Local Authority.
For the first time since the homelessness provisions came into force in 1977 the meaning of ‘vulnerability’ has been considered by the highest Court in the land. This is of critical important for homeless people particularly those with disabilities who do not have children.
Increasingly vulnerable single homeless people have been refused housing and left to fend for themselves as cash strapped councils have turned away people with disabilities on the basis they are not a priority because they are able to cope or at least cope as well as an ‘ordinary homeless person’.
The Supreme Court in three appeals was asked to decide how Local Authorities should approach the statutory test of vulnerability contained in the Housing Act 1996. Under the Act a homeless person without children is considered to be in priority need for accommodation if they are “vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason” S189(1)(c) HA 1996. In a series of appeals brought by Southwark and Solihull Councils, the Court of Appeal had previously ruled that a person was deemed to be vulnerable and in priority need, only if they would suffer more than an “ordinary street homeless person”.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Mr Patrick Kanu against Southwark Council’s decision that he was not a in priority need for housing finding that his suffering should not have been compared with a street homeless person, but rather an ordinary person who stood to lose his accommodation. The Court also rejected the submission that the Equality Act 2010 could never add anything in vulnerability cases and that instead each case should be reived on an individual basis.
In response to today’s judgement Mr Stuart Hearne of Cambridge House Law Centre, and the case lawyer stated:
“This is a very welcome judgement. I would hope that it will also be welcomed by Local Authorities. It will make it much clearer who should be assisted. In the past Local Authorities were having to compare homeless applicants with other homeless people to consider who is more vulnerable – this was a very difficult decision and one that led to disputes and some very disabled people being refused accommodation. It is not in anyone’s interest, including that of Local Authorities, that people who have disabilities or mental health issues should not be housed or left street homeless.
Rough sleepers have a lower life expectancy than the general population and are more likely to have mental and physical health problems.
This decision should now mean that the vast majority of homeless people who have a physical disability or have mental ill health should be accepted as being in priority need for accommodation”.
Available for comment:
Stuart Hearne Cambridge House Law Centre Manager and case Solicitor
firstname.lastname@example.org 0207 358 7025
Karin Woodley CEO of Cambridge House
Kwoodley@ch1889.org 0207 358 7000 extension 2039
Notes to editor
The Supreme Court, in three appeals heard together, Kanu v Southwark LBC, Hotak v Southwark LBC and Johnson v Solihull BC was asked to decide how Local Authorities should approach the statutory test of vulnerability contained in the Housing Act 1996.
Mr Patrick Kanu had physical problems: including hepatitis B and hypertension as well as psychotic symptoms and suicide ideation. He was cared for by his wife but despite her care, stress was raising his hypertension to what doctors characterised as “quite dangerous levels”. Southwark Council had accepted that Mr Patrick Kanu would be in priority need for accommodation if he was on his own but decided that as he had a wife then he was not in priority need.
Mr Sifatullah Hotak is an adult with significant learning difficulties, with measured IQ on one test of 47 and a history of self-harming and depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. His brother, Ezatullah looked after him but was also homeless. Southwark Council decided that as Mr Hotak had a brother to care for him he was not considered to be in priority need.
The Court has overturned previous case law and guidance and has now established that:
1. An authority’s duty to the homeless under Part VII Housing Act 1996 is not to be influenced or affected by the resources available to the authority.
2. The correct comparator when assessing whether someone is vulnerable for the reasons in s189 (1)(c ) is an ordinary person if made homeless.
3. Support from a third party can be taken into account when assessing whether a person is vulnerable but that needs to be applied with “considerable circumspection” and that the fact of support in itself is not enough.
4. In the case of an applicant who has or may have a disability then at each stage of the decision making process the decision maker must have due regard to the need to achieve the goals of the Equality Act 2010 which include the need to eliminate discrimination, advance the equality of opportunity between those that have a disability and those that do not and to take active steps to meet the needs of those with a disability. S149 (1) (a)- ( c) Equality Act 2010.
5. That the consideration of the public sector equality duty must be exercised “in substance, with rigour and with an open mind”.
The full judgment can be downloaded from the Supreme Court website:
Mr Patrick Kanu was represented by Mr Stuart Hearne of Cambridge House Law Centre. His barristers were Mr Zia Nabi of Doughty Street Chambers and Ms Helen Mountfield QC of Matrix Chambers.
Share with your friends: