Cost of living

Havel Mohammed came to the UK in 2007 seeking asylum from Syria. At that time he was under 18. He first lived in Darlington but had to leave because of racist incidents. He then moved to Kirklees where he initially made his own arrangements for accommodation and slept on the floor of a friend’s house. He could not continue with this arrangement and applied as homeless to Kirklees.  Kirklees accepted a duty to house Mr Mohammed and provided him with temporary accommodation. Mr Mohammed did not consider the temporary accommodation to be suitable for him because of various problems including a leaking roof, damp and mould.

Kirklees subsequently granted Mr Mohammed with a secure tenancy of a property in Dewsbury. Although Kirklees gave Mr Mohammed the keys to the property they requested he return the keys and remain in the “unsuitable” temporary accommodation for another six months.  Mr Mohammed claimed compensation from Kirklees as a result. His claim was heard in the Dewsbury County Court and the judge ruled that Kirklees actions amounted to a breach of contract and an interference with Mr Mohamed’s right to peacefully enjoy his new home. The Judge awarded Mr Mohammed £650 for damages. Mr Mohammed does not consider the £650 to adequately reflect the anxiety and distress he suffered and he has been granted permission to appeal the county court decision.

Eligibility

The fact that Mr Mohammed’s case relates to the level of compensation awarded for Kirklees’ actions, makes it very easy to overlook the strict and complex criteria Mr Mohammed’s homeless persons application would have had to satisfy before Kirklees were in a position to offer him a secure tenancy of a property. Firstly, Kirklees would have had to accept that Mr Mohammed was (1) eligible for housing (2) homeless and blameless in his homelessness (3) in priority need of accommodation and (4) had a local connection to Kirklees.

Generally persons from abroad are not eligible for housing unless they fall within the stated exceptions. One of the exceptions for asylum seekers is when their request for asylum has been accepted and they have been granted refugee status. If Mr Mohammed was eligible for housing on the basis of his application for asylum being accepted, the council would not have had any grounds for doubting Mr Mohammed’s homelessness or blaming him for his homelessness. As
Mr Mohammed was under 18 when he applied as homeless he fell within a priority need group for 16 and 17 year olds. Mr Mohammed was already living in Kirklees prior to applying as homeless and this would have strongly supported his local connection with Kirklees.

Every homeless person’s circumstances are different and local authorities frequently reject applications because they do not consider them to satisfy the relevant criteria. 

If a local authority accepts the full housing duty to a homeless person, they have a duty to provide that person with suitable accommodation. There is guidance to assist local authorities determine whether an accommodation is suitable and in accordance with this guidance, local authorities should assess whether the accommodation presents any risks to the health and safety of the homeless person. In Mr Mohammed’s case, it is possible that the damp and mouldy conditions at the temporary accommodation amounted to hazards and made the property unsuitable for him.

If a local authority grants a secure tenancy of a property to a homeless person, a contract is made and both the local authority and “homeless” person are bound to follow the terms of that contract. In Mr Mohammed’s case, when Kirklees broke the contract by not allowing him to move in on the promised date, they left themselves open to the risk of being sued for compensation.

Satvir Sahota, solicitor, Hodge Jones & Allen LLP

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment