Share
In what seems to be a summer for landmark legal judgements, the House of Lords has overturned a ruling that a woman fleeing domestic violence and living in a refuge was not homeless.
So much, so obvious, you might think. After all, people who are vulnerable as a result of domestic violence are specifically mentioned in the guidance to the 2002 Homelessness Act - justifiably so since on average two women a week are killed by a male partner or former partner - and refuges are designed to be exactly that, temporary refuges and not permanent homes.
But Manchester City Council had refused to re-house Sharon Moran, who had fled her council home, on the grounds that she had been asked to leave a refuge because of her behaviour and was therefore intentionally homeless. The case went all the way up through the courts and in May 2008 the Court of Appeal backed Manchester.
According to Shelter that ruling meant that only women who registered with a local authority before going into a refuge would be regarded as homeless. Women in refuges were seen as ‘adequately houses’ and might be making themselves intentionally homeless if they left.
The Women’s Aid Foundation said the effects of the ruling had already been felt around the country, with women being told that so long as they remain in the refuge that meant they were not homeless and no longer at risk of domestic violence. That posed a long-term threat to the future of refuges as safe temporary accommodation because existing residents would find it difficult or impossible to move on.
The case left lawyers wondering how the House of Lords could find a way to come to a sensible judgement. It did so by finding that Ms Moran was not intentionally homeless because she was never in ‘accommodation’ as defined in the Act. According to Baroness Hale: ‘The important principle established here is that in most cases a woman who has left her home because of domestic, or other, violence within it remains homeless even if she has found a temporary haven in a women’s refuge.’ Go here for a link to the judgement.
All of which makes me wonder how the House of Lords may treat an appeal by London & Quadrant in the Susan Weaver case. Can the Lords find a solution that protects the rights of tenants without damaging consequences for housing associations?
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (2)
Joe Halewood | 02/07/2009 11:01 am
Correct decision absolutely.
However, the final paragraph made me squirm. It seems that you are proposing that tenants should be allowed to remain regardless of their conduct - That is a very dangerous inferrence and suggestion.
The courts need to find a way to protect the rights of all tenants to peaceful enjoyment of their property - a standard clause in all tenure agreements. When one tenant exhibits 'bad' behaviour that clearly impacts on other tenants in the locality, then both the landlord and the courts MUST have rights to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the majority of 'good' tenants.
If they dont then social housing will have its already negative perception fall further so that no-one wnats to live there.
The issue between the individual rights of one tenant and the 'greater good' of all tenants in that locality (however defined) needs rebalancing to reflect the over-reliance on individual rights of the perpertrator rather than the negation of the rights of the victims - the law abding vast majority - of other tenants ion that locale.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Jules Birch | 02/07/2009 1:42 pm
Thanks for the comment, Joe. I totally agree with you about the need for a balance between different kinds of rights and I wasn't suggesting for a minute that tenants should be allowed to remain regardless of their behaviour. The broader issues seem to be whether tenants of one sort of social landlord should have fewer rights than those of another and whether that situation can be resolved without damaging implications for housing associations in other areas.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment