In the Courts - Housing

June 2008

Ruling on women’s refuges has ‘serious implications’

The Court of Appeal has held that refuges are capable of being accommodation and that is reasonable for a person to continue to occupy it for the purposes of the Housing Act 1996. An appeal by the defendant, Manchester City Council, from the decision in the Manchester County Court on 16 May 2007 that the council should reconsider its decision that the claimant, Sharon Moran, was homeless intentionally was allowed. A second appeal (the cases were heard together) by claimant Rosemary Richards from the decision in the Ipswich County Court on 2 April 2007 that the defendant, Ipswich Borough Council, no longer owed her a housing duty under s 193 of the Housing Act 1996 because she had become intentionally homeless was dismissed.

The claimants had been made homeless unintentionally when they fled from domestic violence at home. They then occupied a women’s refuge, but were evicted from this accommodation as a result of their own misconduct.

A spokeswoman for Shelter has warned that women in refuges face being forced into unsuitable accommodation in the private sector or having to return home. ‘Refuges are crisis accommodation, and women who have to stay in them for their own safety should be accepted as homeless,’ she said. She went onto confirm that Shelter would apply to the Legal Services Commission for funding for an appeal to the House of Lords.

Moran v Manchester City Council; Richards v Ipswich Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 378

17 April 2008

Comments

There are no comments on this article. Be the first to comment.

Comment on this article
Email this article to a friend

News Review

In the Courts - Housing