Nzolameso v City of Westminster [2015] UKSC 22

A homeless single mother of five with serious health conditions was offered temporary accommodation in Bletchley by Westminster City Council, far from her London home. The Supreme Court allowed her appeal, holding the council had failed to evidence and justify the out-of-borough placement under the Housing Act 1996.

Facts

The appellant, a 51-year-old single mother of five children, had lived in Westminster since 2000 and rented a four-bedroom house there until November 2012, when she was evicted following the introduction of a cap on housing benefit (the local housing allowance). She suffered from numerous chronic health conditions including HIV, Type II diabetes, hypertension and diabetic retinopathy.

Westminster City Council accepted that it owed her the main homelessness duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. On 24 January 2013, the Council offered her temporary accommodation in a five-bedroom house in Bletchley, near Milton Keynes, citing a severe shortage of accommodation in Westminster. The appellant rejected the offer because of its distance from her support network, GP, the children’s schools and her established connections.

The Council notified her that its duty had ended under section 193(5). A review under section 202 upheld the decision, as did an appeal to the county court and the Court of Appeal. During the proceedings, her children were taken into foster care after the Council ceased providing interim accommodation.

Issues

The principal issue was when it is lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from its own area, having regard to:

• The duty under section 208(1) of the 1996 Act to secure accommodation within the authority’s own district “so far as reasonably practicable”;
• The requirement under section 206(1) that accommodation be “suitable”;
• The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 and the Supplementary Guidance issued in November 2012; and
• The duty under section 11 of the Children Act 2004 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

A further issue concerned the standard of reasoning and evidence required of an authority when explaining an out-of-borough placement decision.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the accommodation in Bletchley was unsuitable because of its distance from her support network, medical care and her children’s schools, and that the Council had failed properly to consider its statutory obligations.

The Council, represented by Mr Peacock, defended the review decision, accepting the applicable principles but contending that the decision letter adequately reflected the considerations involved given the severe shortage of housing in Westminster.

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervened to emphasise that authorities must evidence and explain their decisions, and warned against courts inferring compliance with statutory obligations from a local authority’s assumed knowledge and experience. Shelter Children’s Legal Service intervened to highlight the application of section 11 of the Children Act 2004.

Judgment

The Supreme Court (Lady Hale giving the leading judgment, with whom Lord Clarke, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson agreed) allowed the appeal and quashed the decision that the Council’s duty had come to an end.

The statutory framework

Lady Hale explained that section 208(1) imposes a duty stronger than mere reasonableness — “reasonable practicability”. Where in-borough accommodation is not reasonably practicable, the Supplementary Guidance requires the authority, where possible, to secure accommodation as close as possible to where the applicant was previously living. The 2012 Order and Supplementary Guidance had altered the legal landscape as it stood under earlier authorities such as Yumsak and Calgin.

Children’s welfare

Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 required the Council to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children. The decision-maker must identify the principal needs of the children, individually and collectively. It was not sufficient simply to ask whether children were approaching GCSEs.

Evidence and explanation

Authorities must take the Code and Supplementary Guidance into account and must have clear reasons for departing from them. They must have a proper evidential basis for their decisions, and reasons must be adequate to enable the applicant to know why they have won or lost and to allow the court to review the decision. The Court considered that the Court of Appeal had been too ready to assume compliance with statutory obligations from the authority’s assumed knowledge and experience.

Application to this case

The review decision was based on the premise that, because of the general shortage of housing in Westminster, the authority could offer accommodation anywhere else unless the applicant could show it was necessary to remain in Westminster. There was no indication of what accommodation was available in Westminster, or nearer to Westminster, or in Greater London more generally, nor why it had not been offered. There was no indication that the reviewing officer had recognised the obligation to offer accommodation as close as possible if it was not reasonably practicable to accommodate in Westminster. The Council could not show that it had properly discharged its obligations under either the 1996 Act or section 11 of the 2004 Act.

Guidance for the future

Lady Hale offered guidance suggesting that local authorities should ideally have, and keep up to date, a published policy for procuring sufficient units of temporary accommodation and a policy for allocating those units to individual households. Such policies should be approved by elected members and made publicly available, enabling applicants, advisers, temporary lettings teams, reviewing officers and the courts to assess decisions against transparent criteria.

Implications

The decision clarifies the obligations of local housing authorities when making out-of-borough placements following the introduction of the 2012 Order and Supplementary Guidance. Authorities cannot rely on standard form paragraphs simply asserting a general shortage of housing as justification for distant placements; they must demonstrate that they have properly considered the statutory hierarchy: first, the duty to accommodate in district so far as reasonably practicable; secondly, if that is not possible, to accommodate as close as possible.

The judgment emphasises that section 11 of the Children Act 2004 applies to individual decisions as well as policy formulation, requiring authorities to identify and have regard to the welfare needs of children in homeless households. However, the Court left open the question whether section 11 should be interpreted consistently with article 3 of the UNCRC where Convention rights are not engaged.

The case is significant for vulnerable homeless households, particularly families with children, and the local authorities that must accommodate them. It places real evidential and reasoning burdens on housing authorities and signals that courts should not infer compliance from assumed knowledge. The judgment’s practical guidance — encouraging published procurement and allocation policies — is likely to influence administrative practice across English local authorities, particularly in London where out-of-borough placements are increasingly common.

The decision is limited to the lawfulness of the individual decision and the adequacy of reasoning; it does not prohibit out-of-borough placements where these are genuinely unavoidable and properly justified.

Verdict: The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court quashed the local authority’s decision that its duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to secure accommodation for the appellant had come to an end, on the basis that Westminster City Council had failed to demonstrate compliance with its statutory obligations under the 1996 Act and section 11 of the Children Act 2004, and had failed adequately to evidence and explain its decision.

Source: Nzolameso v City of Westminster [2015] UKSC 22