Round #1118

Applicant left a privately rented two-bed flat on 14 January 2025 after two months of escalating anti-social behaviour from the upstairs neighbour, including threats to her child witnessed by police on 8 January 2025 (no charges brought). She approached Manchester City Council on 20 January 2025; the council issued a section 184 decision on 28 March 2025 finding her intentionally homeless because "she had a tenancy she could have remained in". Is the council's intentionality finding likely to survive section 191(1) Housing Act 1996 challenge on review?

# Legal Analysis: Intentional Homelessness Decision – Section 191(1) Housing Act 1996 ## Executive Summary The council's intentionality finding is **highly vulnerable to challenge on review and likely to be overturned**. The decision appears to misapply the statutory test, ignore material facts, and conflict with established case law. Multiple grounds of challenge are available. --- ## 1. The Statutory Framework ### Section 191(1) Housing Act 1996 – The Four-Part Test A person is intentionally homeless only if **all four limbs** are satisfied: > *"A person becomes homeless intentionally if they deliberately do so an act or omission in consequence of which they cease to occupy accommodation which is available for their occupation and which it would have been **reasonable for them to continue to occupy**."* The council's reasoning ("she had a tenancy she could have remained in") addresses **only limb 3** (accommodation was available). It is silent on the critical fourth limb. --- ## 2. The Decisive Statutory Issue: Reasonableness to Continue to Occupy ### Section 177(1) and 177(1A) Housing Act 1996 This provision directly governs the reasonableness assessment: > **S.177(1):** *"It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to domestic violence or other violence against him, or against—(a) a person who normally resides with him as a member of his family, or (b) any other person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him."* > **S.177(1A):** Explicitly extends to **threats of violence likely to be carried out**. ### Application to the Facts | Element | Evidence Present | |---|---| | Threats of violence | ✅ Yes – threats made to applicant/child | | Person residing with applicant | ✅ Yes – child | | Probability of violence | ✅ Supported by escalating pattern over two months | | Threats likely to be carried out | ✅ Police attendance on 8 January 2025 corroborates credibility | The police-witnessed incident of **8 January 2025** is particularly significant. The absence of charges does not negate the threat; police presence itself corroborates that the incident was serious enough to warrant their attendance. The council appears to have given this **no or inadequate weight**. --- ## 3. Errors of Law in the Decision ### Ground 1: Failure to Apply the Reasonableness Test The council's stated reasoning contains a **fundamental legal error**. Finding a tenancy *existed* is not the same as finding it was *reasonable to continue to occupy it*. These are distinct statutory requirements. A decision that collapses them is an error of law: *R v Hillingdon LBC ex parte H* (1988); *Conville v Royal Borough of Richmond upon Thames* [2006] EWCA Civ 718. ### Ground 2: Failure to Consider Section 177(1)/(1A) The failure to engage with the violence/threats exception is a material omission. Courts have consistently held that where there is evidence of violence or threats, a council **must** address s.177 expressly: *Donoghue v Thanet DC* [2015] EWCA Civ 1238; *R (Batantu) v Islington LBC* (2001) 33 HLR 76. ### Ground 3: Misapplication of the Deliberate Act Requirement Section 191 requires a **deliberate** act. Leaving accommodation due to genuine fear of violence is not a deliberate act in the required sense — it is a **reasonable and compelled response** to circumstances. The applicant's departure in mid-January, seven days after the police-witnessed incident, is temporally coherent with a fear-driven departure rather than a voluntary choice. ### Ground 4: Failure to Consider All Circumstances – Statutory Code and Homelessness Code of Guidance The **Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (2018, updated)** at **Chapter 8** requires authorities to: - Consider all circumstances leading to homelessness - Not find intentionality where a person left due to harassment, threats or violence - Assess whether it was **reasonable in practice** to remain **Para 8.33** specifically addresses situations involving anti-social behaviour and harassment escalating to the point where continued occupation would be unreasonable. The Code, while not binding, must be followed unless good reason exists to depart from it: *R v Brent LBC ex parte Awua* [1996] AC 55 (per Lord Hoffmann). ### Ground 5: Failure to Give Adequate Reasons – Procedural Error The stated reason — "she had a tenancy she could have remained in" — fails to engage with: - The two-month history of escalating ASB - The specific police-attended incident of 8 January 2025 - The presence of a child in the household - The applicant's subjective fear and its objective basis This represents a failure to give adequate reasons as required by *R v Wandsworth LBC ex parte Mansoor* [1996] 3 All ER 913. --- ## 4. Relevant Case Law Supporting Challenge | Case | Principle | |---|---| | *R v Brent LBC ex parte Awua* [1996] AC 55 | Reasonableness is a distinct mandatory consideration | | *Ugiagbe v Southwark LBC* [2009] EWCA Civ 31 | Councils must address all relevant circumstances; threats relevant to reasonableness | | *Nzolameso v City of Westminster* [2015] UKSC 22 | Requirement for adequate reasoning addressing material facts | | *Chowdhury v Newham LBC* [2020] (county court) | Police corroboration of threats relevant to s.177 assessment | | *R (Batantu) v Islington* (2001) 33 HLR 76 | Fear of violence must be assessed objectively and sympathetically | | *Haile v Waltham Forest LBC* [2015] UKSC 34 | Causation in intentionality — departure must be consequence of deliberate act | --- ## 5. The Review Process ### Procedure - **Section 202 review** must be requested **within 21 days** of the s.184 decision (i.e., by approximately **18 April 2025** — this is urgent) - A **senior officer** not involved in the original decision must conduct the review - The review officer must consider all material available, including new evidence submitted ### Evidence to Submit on Review 1. **Police incident log / crime reference number** for 8 January 2025 2. **Written statement** from any police officers who attended 3. **Applicant's detailed witness statement** documenting the full chronology of ASB 4. Any **prior complaints to landlord, letting agent, or council ASB team** 5. Evidence of the **child's presence** and any impact (school records, GP, social worker if involved) 6. Any **medical/psychological evidence** of distress 7. **Tenancy agreement** confirming the nature of occupation 8. Neighbour witness statements if available ### Review Grounds The review letter should assert: 1. Error of law in applying s.191(1) without considering s.177(1)/(1A) 2. Failure to find it was reasonable to continue to occupy given violence/threats 3. No deliberate act where departure was compelled by fear 4. Failure to follow the Code of Guidance 5. Failure to give adequate reasons 6. Failure to take into account all material circumstances --- ## 6. If Review Fails: Section 204 Appeal A further appeal lies to the **County Court on a point of law** under s.204 Housing Act 1996, within **21 days** of the review decision. Given the errors of law identified, a s.204 appeal would have strong prospects if the reviewing officer perpetuates the same error. --- ## 7. Overall Assessment | Question | Answer | |---|---| | Is the s.191 finding legally sound? | **No — multiple errors of law** | | Is s.177(1)/(1A) engaged? | **Yes — strongly** | | Did the council apply the correct test? | **No — incomplete statutory analysis** | | Is review likely to succeed? | **High probability if evidence presented properly** | | Is the 21-day deadline urgent? | **Critical — immediate action required** | --- ## Conclusion The council's decision **conflates the existence of a tenancy with the reasonableness of remaining in it**, which is

## Analysis: Intentionality Finding Under s.191(1) Housing Act 1996 ### The Statutory Test Under **s.191(1) Housing Act 1996**, a person becomes homeless intentionally if they: > *"deliberately do or fail to do anything in consequence of which they cease to occupy accommodation which is available for their occupation and which it would have been reasonable for them to continue to occupy."* The conjunctive structure is critical. The council must establish **all three limbs**: 1. A deliberate act or omission 2. Causing cessation of occupation of available accommodation 3. Which it was **reasonable to continue to occupy** The council's decision collapses at **limb 3**, and arguably also at limb 1. --- ### Limb 3: Reasonableness to Continue Occupation — Fatal to the Council's Decision **s.177(1) HA 1996** provides that accommodation is not reasonable to continue to occupy if it would lead to the applicant or a member of her household being subject to **violence or threats of violence likely to be carried out**. The statutory provision expressly extends beyond actual violence to **threats**. The council's bare assertion that "she had a tenancy she could have remained in" wholly fails to engage with this. The relevant facts are: - Escalating ASB over two months, not a single incident - **Threats directed at her child**, not merely to her - Police attendance on **8 January 2025 and witnessed the threats** — this is significant corroboration even absent a charge; no charge being brought does not negate what officers observed - Departure six days later was not precipitous given the escalating pattern **Code of Guidance (2023) Chapter 21** requires authorities to consider all the circumstances, including the nature and severity of threats, their effect on dependent children, and police involvement. The council demonstrably did not do this. Under **Haile v Waltham Forest LBC [2015] UKSC 34**, the Supreme Court confirmed that the reasonableness question requires a full qualitative assessment of circumstances — not a formalistic analysis of whether a contractual tenancy existed. **Reg v Hillingdon LBC ex parte Puhlhofer [1986]** is sometimes misread as setting a high threshold for "accommodation," but post-HA 1996, the distinct reasonableness question under s.177 is a freestanding statutory filter the council cannot sidestep. --- ### Limb 1: Whether Leaving Was "Deliberate" Even if the council reaches reasonableness, **s.191(2)** provides that an act or omission in good faith by someone who was unaware of a relevant fact is not to be treated as deliberate. More significantly, the case law on what constitutes a "deliberate" act recognises that departing to escape threatened harm — particularly to a child — is materially different from a voluntary abandonment of accommodation: see *Din v Wandsworth LBC [1983]*. Leaving because a reasonable person in her position would have felt unsafe is not "deliberate" in the relevant sense. --- ### The s.202 Review On a **s.202 review**, the reviewing officer (who must be senior to the original decision-maker: reg. 8 Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999) must: - Address the s.177 question properly and specifically - Take into account the **police evidence of 8 January** as material fact - Consider the impact on the **dependent child** — Article 8 ECHR and the council's s.11 Children Act 2004 duty both reinforce this - Give adequate reasons: *R v Lambeth LBC ex parte Carroll* (1987) The current decision letter's failure to engage with s.177 at all is a **Wednesbury unreasonable** failure to take into account a material consideration, and the reasoning is legally inadequate under *Cramp v Hastings BC [2005] EWCA Civ 1005*. --- ### Likely Outcome The intentionality finding is **very unlikely to survive review**. The council has applied the test in a legally incorrect manner by treating the existence of a tenancy as sufficient without engaging with the s.177 reasonableness gateway. On review — and if necessary on **s.204 county court appeal** on a point of law — the decision is vulnerable on: | Ground | Strength | |--------|----------| | Failure to apply s.177(1) | **Strong** | | Failure to consider threats to child | **Strong** | | Failure to weight police corroboration | **Strong** | | Inadequate reasons | **Strong** | | Misdirection on "deliberate" act | **Moderate** | The applicant should request a s.202 review in writing **immediately** (the time limit is **21 days** from notification of the decision under s.202(3), and given the decision was issued 28 March 2025 this should be treated as urgent), request interim accommodation under **s.188(3)** pending review, and supply the police attendance record from 8 January as a primary exhibit.