Key Points from ‣

Four appeals against Birmingham City Council were joined together, as they all related to suitability of temporary accommodation. The main issue was the nature of main housing duty owed to households accepted as unintentionally homeless and in priority need. Must that duty be discharged immediately it is accepted, regardless of whether the local housing authority have suitable stock available?

Birmingham accepted the main housing duty under S193(2) of Housing Act 1996 towards Mr Elkundi, Mr Ahmed and Ms Ross. In the case of the fourth claimant, Mr Al-Shameri, the main housing duty was accepted, but Birmingham contends the duty has been discharged.

All four had been placed in temporary accommodation by the Council, and all four maintain that the temporary accommodation they were given was unsuitable. The appellants claim that the duty under S193(2) is to secure suitable accommodation, and that duty arises immediately, at the point of acceptance by the Council.

The Council argues that the S193(2) duty compels the Council to secure suitable accommodation within a reasonable period of time (depending on the household's individual circumstances and the availability at the time).

Mr Ahmed and Mr Al-Shameri also challenged the Council's practice of providing accommodation that they accept is unsuitable. A reviewing officer had accepted the accommodation was unsuitable in the longer term, but the Council said that it was not unreasonable for the households to occupy it on a short-term basis (whilst alternative accommodation is awaited).

Mr Elkundi

At the time of the appeal hearing, Mr Elkundi and his family had been living in the three-bedroom property for more than 6 years, firstly under S188 (interim accommodation), then following acceptance of the main housing duty. The family consists of the couple and 3 sons, aged 23, 13 and 6, and two teenage daughters (7 people). The family's application on Birmingham's housing register was awarded priority based on overcrowding at the property.

Mr Elkundi suffered with mobility problems due to osteoarthritis. The Council had offered the family a 4 bedroom house, but on review, that was found to be unsuitable - because of Mr Elkundi's mobility issues. Mr Elkundi then contacted the Council to say that his current temporary accommodation was unsuitable for the same reason. Nonetheless, Birmingham made a permanent offer of the property, which Mr Elkundi refused. The Council requested an OT report. Two were commissioned, both saying that Mr Elkundi could manage only one or two steps.

Mr Elkundi requested a statutory review of the suitability of the current accommodation. The reviewing officer considered that the accommodation was unsuitable on mobility grounds, but said in his letter that, although suitable accommodation would be secured as soon as possible, 'unprecedented demand' made it impossible to say when this would be. The family were given high priority on the 'Planned Move List'.

A further offer was made in November 2020, but this was also refused. On review this offer was found to be unsuitable due to statutory overcrowding.

Mr Ahmed

Mr Ahmed was a single parent living with 7 children, ranging from 8 to 20 years of age. the youngest child has severe autism and epilepsy and another child has a disability which necessitates the use of a walking aid. In March 2019, Mr Ahmed was offered and accepted a 3 bedroom house as temporary accommodation. He sought a review of its suitability. The reviewing officer found it unsuitable but again, could not say when an alternative offer would be made.

Mrs Ross

Mrs Ross has used an electric wheelchair permanently since 2012. Mrs Ross required adaptations to be made to the 2 bedroom bungalow she was offered as temporary accommodation. An Occupational Therapist made a number of recommendations for adaptations. However, because the accommodation was temporary accommodation, the order to carry out the adaptations was withdrawn.

It was originally intended that the accommodation offered would be an assured tenancy in full discharge of the main housing duty, but the Council failed to formally offer the property as a Final Offer, and had not confirmed that the Council considered it brought the duty to an end.

Mrs Ross sought a review of the suitability of the accommodation. In the review response, it was accepted that Mrs Ross should be given one further offer of accommodation, because the offer was not a legitimate one to discharge the duty. However, the letter did not address whether the property was considered suitable as temporary accommodation.