Sacupima & Ors, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham

Factual and Procedural Background

Seven applicants, all homeless persons formerly resident in the London Borough of Newham, challenged decisions made by the Respondent housing authority under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 ("the 1996 Act"). Each applicant applied to the Respondent for alternative accommodation and was required to remain with their family in their existing accommodation until eviction by bailiffs. After eviction, they were informed that the Respondent would not secure accommodation within Newham, neighbouring areas, or London, but had arranged bed and breakfast accommodation at seaside resorts such as Great Yarmouth, Brighton, or Southend. All applicants were on income support and unable to afford travel costs to continue schooling, employment, or medical care.

The applicants sought judicial review and obtained interim court orders requiring the provision of accommodation closer to Newham, which was subsequently provided. The central legal challenge was whether the Respondent lawfully discharged its interim duty under section 188 of the 1996 Act to provide suitable temporary accommodation pending a decision under section 193 regarding longer-term accommodation duties.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Respondent lawfully discharged its interim duty under section 188 of the 1996 Act by providing bed and breakfast accommodation outside the district, specifically at seaside resorts.
2. Whether the suitability of accommodation can be qualified by the Respondent's resource constraints.
3. Whether the Respondent's policy of placing applicants outside the district without proper consideration of individual circumstances was lawful.
4. Whether the duty to provide temporary accommodation under section 188 arises from the date a possession order takes effect or only upon eviction.
5. Whether bed and breakfast accommodation is a lawful and preferable means of discharging the section 188 duty.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• The decision to place applicants in bed and breakfast accommodation at seaside resorts was unlawful as it disregarded relevant considerations and was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.
• The duty to secure suitable accommodation under sections 188 and 193 is unqualified and cannot be limited by the Respondent's financial constraints.
• The Respondent failed to properly consider the impact of accommodation location on schooling, employment, and medical care.
• The duty to provide temporary accommodation under section 188 arises from the date the possession order takes effect, not only upon eviction.
• The Respondent could have increased the use of its own housing stock or private sector accommodation instead of relying heavily on bed and breakfast accommodation.

Respondent's Arguments

• The decision to provide bed and breakfast accommodation at seaside resorts was lawful and reasonable given the severe shortage of resources and accommodation in Newham and London.
• The suitability of accommodation can be qualified by financial constraints and availability; the Respondent is not required to provide accommodation beyond what it can afford.
• Bed and breakfast accommodation is a lawful and acceptable means of discharging the interim duty under section 188, especially as a last resort.
• The duty to provide accommodation under section 188 arises upon eviction, not when a possession order is made but not executed.
• The Respondent must balance competing demands on its housing stock, including long-term allocations and the needs of those on its waiting list.
• Accommodation outside the district is suitable unless there is a "serious reason" related to life or health risks that requires accommodation within the district.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized the severe housing crisis and resource constraints faced by the Respondent, including overspending and limited availability of temporary self-contained accommodation. It accepted that bed and breakfast accommodation is a lawful and acceptable means of discharging the interim duty under section 188, particularly as a last resort, supported by statutory guidance and Secretary of State circulars.

The court held that suitability of accommodation is an unqualified duty focused on the applicant's needs, but resource constraints may be considered in assessing what is reasonably suitable. However, there is a minimum standard of suitability below which accommodation must not fall, regardless of resources.

While the Respondent's policy of placing applicants outside the district was understandable given resource limitations, the court found it too rigid and narrow. The Respondent failed to give proper individualized consideration to the effect of location on applicants' education, employment, and medical needs. For example, it was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense not to consider the impact on children taking examinations or on applicants unable to afford travel to work.

The court emphasized that authorities must explore whether suitable arrangements can be made to mitigate the difficulties caused by location before concluding accommodation outside the district is suitable. The failure to do so rendered the decisions unlawful.

On the timing of homelessness, the court accepted that the duty under section 188 can arise from the date a possession order takes effect, not only upon eviction, rejecting the Respondent's contrary interpretation based on procedural rules not constituting an enactment.

Although the court acknowledged concerns about the potential flood of judicial review applications and the policy intent of the 1996 Act to limit High Court involvement, it maintained that the limited scope for challenge and the need for proper consideration justified the exercise of judicial review jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the decisions by the Respondent to provide bed and breakfast accommodation outside the district without proper individualized consideration of the applicants' circumstances were erroneous in law. The policy applied was too rigid and failed to address the suitability of accommodation in light of location-specific factors such as education, employment, and medical needs.

Implications: The ruling requires the Respondent to reconsider accommodation decisions under section 188 with proper regard to individual circumstances, particularly the impact of location. The decision confirms that while resource constraints may be considered, they do not justify disregarding minimum suitability standards. No new precedent altering established principles was set; rather, the judgment clarifies the application of existing legal standards and the necessity for flexible, reasonable decision-making by housing authorities.