Our client is a single mother from Eritrea who does not speak English.
On 21 May 2024, a London local authority made her an offer of private rented sector accommodation in a small town in Leicestershire, some 100 miles from her home.
Without the benefit of legal advice, she rejected the offer of accommodation on the basis that it was far away from her support networks.
The local authority stated the property was suitable for her and the closest property that they were able to find. It discharged its main housing duty to her and told her that her current temporary accommodation would end.
The client approached us, and we requested a s202 HA 96 review of the suitability of the property in Leicestershire. We also requested a s202 HA 96 review of the decision to discharge her main housing duty. We also requested accommodation pending review which was provided.
We made representations using data obtained from Housing Action Lambeth and Southwark (HASL) which confirms that in 2023, that particular local authority made 185 offers of PRS accommodation, with roughly 77% of these being offered in borough.
From the out of borough offers, 23 of them were made within London, 10 in the Southeast of England, 7 offers made in the West Midlands, 2 in the East Midlands, and 0 in the Northeast of England.
We also looked at our client’s housing file and saw that only one referral for a PRS placement was made. The local authority took no other steps to try and source closer accommodation.
We argued that given our client has only a 1-bedroom housing need, and without evidence of the steps the authority took to find accommodation closer than Leicestershire, it was irrational for them to argue that it was the closest available property.
We made representations to the effect that our client’s housing needs assessment was not lawful, and in the absence of a lawful housing needs assessment any subsequent suitability decision is itself unlawful.
We made further representations regarding the authority’s failures to comply with Article 3 of The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012. There were no details in her housing file about the proposed landlord, or of the condition of the property. There was no tenancy agreement or EPC / Gas Safety certificate. These were not checked before making the client the offer or even at the time she was made the offer.
We finally made representations regarding the social isolation our client would experience in a town far away from her community. We also looked at the town’s demographics and noted it would be exceptionally hard for our client to assimilate into a place where her community is not represented at all.
On the back of these representations, the local authority agreed that the property in Leicestershire was not suitable. It has since reinstated the main housing duty.
The client was represented by Thea Grattidge in the housing team.
