Seabrook v Brighton & Hove City Council

Brighton & Hove had adopted a homelessness strategy as required by the Homelessness Act 2002. The part of the strategy dealing with “rough sleepers” indicated that the council would assess all the single rough sleepers in its area and accommodate those with a local connection until they secured, or were provided with, permanent homes of their own.

Mr Seabrook was sleeping rough in the council’s area.

He had worked all his life and been married with teenage children. The marriage had broken down and he had left the family home. The council did not assess Seabrook or secure housing for him and in November 2004 he began a claim for a judicial review in the High Court. In the interim, a judge granted an injunction requiring Brighton to house him temporarily. The thinking was that the council ought to have exercised its new statutory discretion to house those who are unintentionally homeless and not in priority need.

The injunction was cancelled on 17 January 2005 when the council agreed it would provide accommodation for another seven days and then process Seabrook in accordance with its homelessness strategy.

Source

Housing Today

Reference

This case highlights two important aspects of the changes made by the Homelessness Act 2002. First, it shows homelessness strategies are not pious statements of the possible but are enforceable commitments to action. Second, it spotlights the often overlooked new power to house non-priority, unintentionally homeless people.