From Housing View

Where a person applies to a local housing authority under Part 7, Housing Act 1996 and the authority is satisfied that they are homeless, eligible for assistance, in priority need and have not become homeless intentionally then, unless the authority refers the application to another housing authority, the authority must secure that suitable accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant (s.193(2)). That duty may end if a person becomes intentionally homeless from accommodation provided by the authority (s.193(6)(b); Encyclopedia, para.1-3615). A person is intentionally homeless if they deliberately do or fail to do anything as a consequence of which they cease to occupy accommodation which is available for them and which it would have been reasonable for them to continue to occupy (s.191(1); Encyclopedia, para.1-3609).

Mr Kyle was a recovering drug addict who, in November 2020, applied for assistance under Part 7. The authority accepted that they owed the s.193(2) duty and provided him with accommodation in a shared house which specialised in supporting recovering drug addicts. Mr Kyle was accused of stealing from another resident in the shared house and was told he had to leave. The authority thereupon decided that Mr Kyle was intentionally homeless. That decision was upheld on review and on appeal.

He appealed to the Court of Appeal, contending both (a) that he would not have been able to occupy the property indefinitely, and (b) that the nature of the rules at the shared house (“no visitors”, “no smoking”) meant that the property was not such that it was reasonable for him to continue to occupy, so that he was still homeless and therefore could not be intentionally homeless by being evicted from it. The Court of Appeal dismissed a second appeal. The authority had been fully entitled to conclude that it was reasonable for Mr Kyle to continue to occupy the room and that he had lost that accommodation because of his own acts. The accommodation had been physically suitable and – but for his theft – would have been available to Mr Kyle for an indefinite period which meant that it was reasonable to continue to occupy it and that the authority was entitled to find that he had become homeless intentionally. The rules did not have any bearing on whether it was reasonable for him to continue to occupy it.