Intentional homelessness

Ms Lomotey applied to Enfield for council housing for herself and her children but was refused because she was joint owner, with her brother, of the flat she lived in. A year later she gave up her interest in favour of him and he gave her notice to quit.

She applied to the council as homeless, saying she was separated from the father of her children, that she only sought accommodation for herself and the children, and that she had agreed to be served with notice by her brother as it suited them both for the council to rehouse her.

She later said the flat had been overcrowded.

The council decided she had become intentionally homeless, and Lomotey asked for a review.

She denied that she had asked her brother to serve notice and said the flat had been unsuitable because the children’s father could not live with her there.

The review upheld the earlier decision and Lomotey appealed.

The local judge allowed her appeal because the council had not put to her for comment an allegation of “collusion” and the fact that her earlier statement had said the relationship with the children’s father was over.

The Court of Appeal allowed the council’s appeal and upheld the finding of intentional homelessness. It decided there had been no procedural unfairness; there was no legal obligation to have a “hearing” on the review request. The council had relied on the very information it had been given by the applicant.