- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
R v Eastleigh Borough Council Ex p. Betts
Factual and Procedural Background
The Respondents, a married couple with two dependent children, became homeless after the husband lost his employment with Company A in City E. At the time, they were residing in temporary rented accommodation within the jurisdiction of the Appellant, a housing authority in The City (County Z). Prior to moving south, the family had occupied social housing in District X (County Y), where rent arrears remained outstanding.
On 6 February 1981, the Respondents applied to the Appellant for accommodation under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. The Appellant provided temporary lodging at [Number] Main Street but, after inquiries, formed the opinion that:
- the Respondents lacked a local connection with The City, and
- they possessed such a connection with District X.
Pursuant to section 5 of the 1977 Act, the Appellant referred the application to District X, which offered accommodation the Respondents refused. The Respondents then sought judicial review, contending that the referral was unlawful. A judge of the High Court dismissed the claim; the Court of Appeal allowed it, issuing mandamus against the Appellant. The Appellant obtained leave to appeal to the House of Lords, which delivered the present judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Appellant, in referring the Respondents’ application under section 5 of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, misdirected itself as to the meaning of “normally resident” in section 18(1)(a) and thereby erred in assessing local connection.
- Whether the Appellant unlawfully fettered its discretion by applying a guideline that fewer than six months’ residence cannot establish a local connection.
- Whether the opinion formed by the Appellant under section 5(1) was so unreasonable that no properly directed housing authority could have reached it.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents’ Arguments
- The Appellant applied an inflexible “six-month rule” derived from a non-statutory agreement, thereby fettering its discretion.
- Under the authority of R v Barnet LBC ex p Shah, “normal” (or “ordinary”) residence can arise in a much shorter period; residence may be “changed in a day.”
- Consequently, the Respondents were normally resident in The City on 6 February 1981 and thus had a local connection preventing lawful referral.
Appellant’s Arguments
- Section 5 focuses on whether a local connection exists, not merely on length of residence; guidelines serve to expedite decisions but are not applied mechanically.
- The Appellant considered all relevant factors and reasonably concluded the Respondents lacked a current local connection with The City while possessing one with District X.
- The High Court was correct that no misdirection or fettering occurred; the Court of Appeal erred by substituting its own view for the statutory opinion of the housing authority.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| R v Barnet London Borough Council ex parte Shah [1983] 2 WLR 16 | Meaning of “ordinarily resident”: residence adopted voluntarily and for settled purposes. | Court of Appeal relied on it to equate “normally resident” with “ordinarily resident”; the House of Lords held the focus should instead be on local connection. |
| British Oxygen Co Ltd v Board of Trade [1971] AC 610 | Administrative bodies may adopt policies/guidelines provided they remain open to individual facts. | Used by the House of Lords to validate the Appellant’s use of the six-month guideline as a lawful policy tool. |
| Macrae v Macrae [1949] P 397 | A person’s ordinary residence can change in a single day. | Cited by the Respondents and Court of Appeal; the House of Lords distinguished the concept as subordinate to “local connection” in the homelessness context. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
Lord Brightman, delivering the leading speech (with all other Law Lords concurring), analysed section 5 in conjunction with section 18 of the 1977 Act. His Lordship emphasised that:
- The statutory test is whether the applicant has a local connection with the notifying authority’s area, not simply whether he is “normally resident” there.
- Section 18 enumerates four exclusive bases for establishing a local connection (residence, employment, family association, special circumstances). Residence is relevant only insofar as it creates such a connection.
- Guidelines—such as the six-month benchmark contained in an inter-authority “Agreement on Procedures for Referrals of the Homeless”—are legitimate management tools. Provided the authority remains willing to consider exceptional cases, adherence to the guideline does not amount to unlawful fettering.
- The Appellant’s correspondence and affidavits showed that it considered the totality of the Respondents’ circumstances and concluded, rationally, that less than four months’ residence had not forged a local connection with The City, whereas substantial past residence and tenancy obligations linked them to District X.
- The Court of Appeal mischaracterised the issue by treating “normal residence” as the decisive criterion and by substituting its own assessment for the statutory “opinion” entrusted to housing authorities.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; the Court of Appeal’s order was reversed and the High Court’s order dismissing the application for judicial review was restored.
Implications: The decision confirms that housing authorities may employ reasonable, published guidelines (e.g., a six-month residence benchmark) when determining “local connection” under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, so long as they remain open to departures in exceptional cases. The judgment limits judicial intervention to situations where an authority’s opinion is vitiated by misdirection or irrationality, thereby reinforcing administrative discretion and promoting speedy resolution of homelessness referrals.
Alert