July-December 2016
ISSN 2050-005X (Online); 978-1535124478 (ISBN-13); 1535124474 (ISBN-10)
A homeless person may be owed a duty to be re-housed by a local housing authority if they can meet the requirements set out in the Housing Act 1996. The authority does not owe the full duty, however, in circumstances where the homeless person has made themselves ‘intentionally homeless’ - where they have carried out a deliberate act or omission which has led to their loss of accommodation. The House of Lords ruling in Din v Wandsworth London Borough Council [1983]1 had created a consistent and certain approach to findings of intentionality. The Supreme Court in Haile2 claims not to have departed from the reasoning in Din. Still, it will be shown that the express findings in Haile have completely changed the approach to intentionality. Despite the Supreme Court’s protestations to the contrary, a certain deliberate act by a homeless person can now be ignored if, hypothetically, the homeless person would have become homeless anyway—creating a causational nightmare for authority decision makers.
Keywords: Housing Act 1996; Intentional homelessness; Din; Haile.
1 Din v Wandsworth London Borough Council [1983] 1 AC 657.
2 Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2015] UKSC 34, [2015] AC 1471.
3 Ibid.
4 Dyson v Kerrier District Council [1980] 1 WLR 1205 CA.
5 Housing Act 1996.
6 Housing Act 1996.
7 Haile, para 26–27.
8 Haile, para 30.
9 Haile, para 67.
10 Haile, para 28–29.
11 Haile, para 67.
12 Din v Wandsworth London Borough Council [1983] 1 AC 657 (HL).
13 Haile, para 9.
14 Haile, para 73.
15 Fitzleet Estates Ltd v Cherry (Inspector of Taxes) [1977] 1 WLR 1345 (HL).
16 R (on the applications of ZH and CN) v London Borough of Newham and London Borough of Lewisham [2014] UKSC 62, [2014] 3 WLR 1548 53.
17 Haile, para 72.
18 Haile, para 79.
19 Din (HL).
20 Din (HL), 658.
21 Din (HL), 667.
22 Din (HL), 667.
23 Din (HL), 672.
24 Haile, para 89.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Haile, para 93.
28 Haile, para 11.
29 R v Brent London Borough Council, Ex p Awua [1996] AC 55.
30 Haile, para 11.
31 Awua, 69.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 Awua, 73.
35 R v Harrow London Council, Ex p Fahia [1996] 29 HLR 94 (HL).
36 R v Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, Ex p Bassett [1983] 10 HLR 125.
37 R v Camden London Borough Council, Ex p Aranda [1998] 30 H.L.R. 76.
38 Ibid., 88.
39 Haile, para 92.
40 Din (HL), 681.
41 Ibid.
42 Haile, para 80.
† Senior Lecturer, University of Wolverhampton Law School.
(2016). Case Comment Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2015]. Legal issues Journal, 4 (2), https://www.legalissuesjournal.com/article/04-02-14072016/
