Reasonable Occupational Continuation  

In the cases of Birmingham City Council v Ali and others and Moran v Manchester City Council (Women’s Aid Federation of England and another intervening) 2009 UKHL 36 the Law Lords considered the duties of local housing authorities towards homeless people under the Housing Act 1996, part 7, and when it was reasonable to remain in short term or refuge accommodation.

> judgment

Extracts from the article as follows:

"What the House of Lords seem to have done is to have gone for a halfway house," says Stark. "They have said the 'reasonable to continue to occupy' test does not simply mean 'reasonable to continue to occupy today' but means 'reasonable to continue to occupy indefinitely'. The use of the word 'continue' in the legislation looks to the future as well as to the present." In the context of women leaving in a refuge, he argues it would clearly be unreasonable for a woman to stay indefinitely "and therefore they remain homeless for the whole time that they are there".

...

"The problem is that the Act is couched in terms of principles of making offers to the homeless," he explains. "The effect therefore is that section 193(2) accommodation—in other words, the accommodation that the authority is securing—is being secured by telling you to stay in your own home. It’s difficult to see how they are securing anything in those circumstances. You also have this potential procedural nonsense where you are going to have to offer their tenant their own home."

Quick links

> The full article can be found on under Current Awareness on the Lexis Nexis Butterworths network (subscription only) ref: LNB News 27/7/2009 "Reasonable occupational continuation". Click here to sign in if you have an account.

> 1/7/09 - GCN housing seminar to consider latest Lords judgment on homelessness