Beach v. South Hams District Council [2025] EWCA Civ
Mr Toby Vanhegan and Mr Kevin Brown appeared for the appellant instructed by G T Stewart Solicitors.
The Court of Appeal held that a room in a seaside hotel was both available for the appellant, and reasonable for him to continue to occupy, and therefore upheld the authority's review decision that he was homeless intentionally for not staying there, even though his children could not go there. This was in circumstances where the authority had decided that he was in priority need because his children were reasonably expected to reside with him, and the authority were searching for permanent accommodation where his children could reside.
On 24 November 2022 the appellant applied for homelessness assistance. On 17 March 2023 the Family Court made an order that two of the appellant's six children were to reside with him, and the rest with their mother. On 27 March 2023 the respondents accepted that they owed the section 193(2) duty. On 19 April 2023 two of the children were removed from the appellant's care when he was found with them and his dog in a shipping container. They went to live with their mother .
On 24 April 2023 the respondents offered the appellant, a room at the Seascape Hotel. He stayed there for one night and left on 25 April 2023. On 25 April the respondents notified him of their decision that he was homeless intentionally. He requested a review. On 22 June 2023 the Family Court ordered that the children should reside with the mother. By a letter dated 18 July 2023, the respondents completed the review and decided that he was homeless intentionally for not staying at the Seascape Hotel.
The appellant appealed to the county court. His appeal was dismissed and he appealed to the Court of Appeal on two grounds. First, that a room in a seaside hotel is not reasonable to continue to occupy. Secondly, that if such a room can generally be reasonable to continue to occupy, it was not on the facts of this case. Permission was granted on both grounds.
In the Court of Appeal, Holroyde LJ gave the leading judgment, and Nugee LJ gave a concurring judgment. It was held that whether accommodation is suitable and reasonable to continue to occupy depends upon the facts of each case, and therefore they rejected the general proposition about hotel accommodation. Accommodation in a single room and subject to restrictions and rules of occupation, was far from ideal, but the Court held that there was no error in the decision that it was reasonable to continue to occupy.
On the issue of whether the hotel room was available to the appellant, even though his children could not reside there, the Court held that although the section 193(2) duty may continue unaltered on the basis that the appellant had children who were reasonably expected to reside with him, the manner in which the duty could be performed may change as circumstances change. When the hotel room was offered, the children had been removed from the appellant's care and were residing safely with their mother, and therefore did not need temporary accommodation. Accordingly, there was no error of law by the respondents in offering a hotel room which only the appellant could occupy.
In his concurring judgment, Nugee LJ held that where the respondents have assessed the appellant to be in priority need because he is a person with whom dependent children reside or might reasonably be expected to reside, they can nevertheless make temporary accommodation available to him alone on the basis that, although the children can be expected to reside with him once permanent accommodation is found, it is not reasonable to expect them to reside with him in the temporary accommodation.
On the facts, the respondents were entitled to decide that the children were not reasonably expected to reside with the appellant at the hotel, because children's services had said that it would be better for them to reside with their mother for the time being. The respondents were also entitled to decide that they did not normally reside with the appellant when the hotel room was offered, because they were living with their mother and therefore that is where they were normally living at that time. Please read the full Judgment here. |
