Key Facts
- •17-year-old claimant (DF/C) lived with her mother in a council flat.
- •Mother died from a drug overdose; C was assessed as a 'child in need'.
- •Landlord served notice to quit the flat.
- •C wished to remain in the flat; legal questions arose regarding her homelessness and the local authority's duty of care.
- •C turned 18 during the proceedings.
- •Landlord (CBH) offered C alternative accommodation before her 18th birthday as an exceptional measure.
Legal Principles
Definition of 'homeless' under s.175 Housing Act 1996.
Housing Act 1996
Local authority's duty to provide accommodation to children in need under s.20 Children Act 1989.
Children Act 1989, s.20
Distinction between bare licence and contractual licence.
Chandler v Kerley [1978], Metropolitan Properties v Cronan (1981-82), Terunnanse v Terunnanse [1968]
Protection from Eviction Act 1977 and its relevance to homelessness.
Protection from Eviction Act 1977
Article 8 ECHR and its potential application to eviction.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8
Local authority's continuing obligations to former relevant children under s.23C Children Act 1989.
Children Act 1989, s.23C
Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948]
Joint Guidance on homelessness and accommodation for 16 and 17-year-olds.
Joint Guidance (2018)
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
The claimant was found to be homeless under s.175 HA 1996 after the notice to quit expired, but this did not automatically mean she required accommodation under s.20 CA 1989. The council's decision not to provide s.20 accommodation was deemed reasonable, considering the circumstances and the imminent changes in legislation regarding accommodation for 16 and 17-year-olds. The council's refusal to treat the claimant as a former relevant child was also upheld.