Abstract
Housing – Homeless person. The claimant had fallen into rent arrears for her privately rented property and was subsequently evicted. She applied for assistance to the defendant local authority claiming homelessness. The local authority and subsequent reviewing officer concluded, inter alia, that she had intentionally become homeless. Following a unsuccessful appeal to the county court, the claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal, Civil Division and contented that, in making its decision, the authority had failed to have regard to the best interests of her children as a primary consideration. Her appeal was dismissed.
Commentry
The question boiled down to whether the reviewing officer noting the impact of a negative decision, on the children and making reference to the duty to inform the children’s section of the relevant social services department, pursuant to s 213A of the 1996 Act. Was enough to discharge their duty under ZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2011] All ER (D) 02 (Feb) (ZH), the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and s 11 of the Children Act 1989 (the 1989 Act).
The Judgment found that “there was no doubt that s 11 of the 1989 Act applied to the authority when making the decision in question. That was acknowledged in the statutory guidance set out in s 182(1) of the 1996 Act. In making its decision the authority had to have a child-centred approach. ….[the current case concerned] question of budget and not to do with the principles set out in s 11 of the 1996 Act and ZH. Those principles did not warrant the rewriting of legislation, which already had into it consideration of the welfare of children.”
So while convention rights do apply to housing it will be a question of fact if they would apply to a Housing s184, though likely unless there is a direct link between children and the reason for homelessness.
Edited:- Transcript removed (see Lawtel for full version Citation 2[2013] All ER (D) 242 (Nov)
