Clarifying Availability and Reasonableness of Temporary Accommodation under Part VII: Beach v South Hams DC

Introduction

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Beach v South Hams District Council ([2025] EWCA Civ 609) considers when a local housing authority can treat an applicant as intentionally homeless after offering temporary accommodation. Mr Ivan Beach applied for housing and was offered a single‐occupancy hotel room despite a previously accepted priority need on the basis of dependent children. He failed to occupy that room and the Council held he had become intentionally homeless, thereby ending its duty under s 193 of the Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”). This appeal raises two key issues:

How the statutory definition of “available accommodation” in s 176 interacts with priority need arising from dependent children; and
Whether it was ever “reasonable” for Mr Beach to continue to occupy a short‐term hotel room under the Act.

The Court of Appeal (Holroyde, Stuart-Smith and Nugee LJJ) dismissed Mr Beach’s appeal, clarifying the test of availability and reasonableness for temporary accommodation.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the County Court’s rejection of Mr Beach’s challenge to the Council’s review decision. It held that:

The offer of a room at the Seascape Hotel was properly regarded as “accommodation” and was available for Mr Beach’s occupation alone at the date of offer. Although the Council had earlier accepted a priority need because of dependent children, children services had advised that the children should remain with their mother in the interim;
Section 176 requires the accommodation to be available for those who “might reasonably be expected to reside” with the applicant at the time it is offered. On 21 and 24 April 2023 the children were residing with their mother and were not expected to reside with Mr Beach in temporary housing;
It was reasonable for Mr Beach to continue to occupy the hotel room as a short‐term staging post while he sought permanent accommodation. The mere fact that the room lacked cooking facilities, banned pets and imposed visitor‐curfews did not, as a matter of law, render it unreasonable;
When Mr Beach absented himself and refused to take up the room, he deliberately ceased to occupy accommodation which he could reasonably have continued to occupy, thereby becoming intentionally homeless under s 191 and ending the Council’s duty under s 193(6)(b).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Awua (R v Brent LBC, ex parte Awua [1996] 1 AC 55) – Held that temporary accommodation can satisfy the “reasonable to continue to occupy” test and the applicant is threatened with homelessness if tenure is so precarious that it is likely to end within the statutory period.
Ali (Birmingham CC v Ali [2009] UKHL 36) – Confirmed that “suitability” and “reasonable to occupy” do not require permanence; short‐term housing may suffice, provided the applicant can realistically remain until rehoused.
Muse v Brent LBC [2008] EWCA Civ 1447 – A person may become intentionally homeless from temporary accommodation if they voluntarily cease to occupy it.
Hodge v Folkestone & Hythe DC [2023] EWCA Civ 896 – Questions of fact on suitability and reasonableness are for the housing authority, subject only to Wednesbury unreasonableness.
Kyle v Coventry CC [2023] EWCA Civ 1360 – Summarised key principles, including that the tenure length is generally less important than physical and practical characteristics of the accommodation.
Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames LBC [2009] UKHL 7 – Distinguished welfare‐based decisions of family courts from resource‐allocation decisions of housing authorities when assessing whether children can reasonably be expected to reside with an applicant.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning turned on four interlocking statutory tests:

Definition of Homelessness (s 175) – A person is homeless unless they have reasonable accommodation.
Availability of Accommodation (s 176) – Accommodation is “available” only if it can be occupied by the applicant together with those who normally reside or might reasonably be expected to reside with them.
Intentional Homelessness (s 191) – An applicant becomes intentionally homeless if they deliberately cease to occupy accommodation that is available and reasonable to continue to occupy.
Main Duty and Its Cessation (s 193(2) & (6)) – The local authority must secure suitable accommodation but the duty ends when the applicant becomes intentionally homeless from that accommodation.

The court held that s 176 must be applied at the moment accommodation is offered. The children, on professional advice, were then safely housed with their mother and were not “reasonably expected” to reside with Mr Beach in temporary housing. The hotel room thus qualified as both available and reasonable. When he failed to occupy it, his act met the s 191 test, and the Council’s duty lapsed under s 193(6)(b).

Impact

This decision:

Clarifies that availability under s 176 is a dynamic test tied to the circumstances at the date of offer, not a permanent extension of priority‐need obligations;
Reaffirms that short‐term, restrictive accommodation (e.g., hotel rooms without cooking facilities or pets) can be “reasonable” as a staging post towards permanent housing;
Signals that housing authorities may lawfully make offers of temporary accommodation limited to the applicant alone where dependents are safely housed elsewhere on a temporary basis;
Underscores the applicant’s duty to occupy offered accommodation if they wish to preserve their statutory housing rights.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Intentionally homeless”: A person is intentionally homeless if they deliberately stop living in accommodation they could reasonably stay in. For example, leaving a hotel room they were given under the homelessness laws without valid reason.
“Available accommodation”: Accommodation is “available” only if the applicant and people they live with (or could be expected to live with) can occupy it. This must be assessed when the offer is made.
“Priority need”: Certain applicants (e.g., those with dependent children) are in “priority need,” which triggers a main housing duty. But that duty can be properly discharged by offering them short‐term housing suitable to their present circumstances.

Conclusion

Beach v South Hams DC refines the interplay of ss 176, 191 and 193 of the Housing Act 1996. It confirms that:

Availability of accommodation must be tested at the moment of offer, taking into account who might reasonably reside with the applicant at that time;
Short‐term, restrictive accommodations like hotel rooms can satisfy both the “availability” and “reasonable to continue to occupy” tests; and
An applicant who refuses or abandons such accommodation may be found intentionally homeless, ending the local authority’s duty.

This judgment offers clear guidance to housing authorities on structuring temporary offers and to applicants on the consequences of declining or failing to use them.