DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Non-motoring legal advice
*****************************************************
#Post#: 91989--------------------------------------------------
Intentional Homelessness / s.202 Review / s.204 Appeal
By: CBankie Date: September 29, 2025, 7:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Case Summary – Intentional Homelessness / s.202 Review / s.204
Appeal
I’m posting on behalf of my friend, who would like advice on
their homelessness case.
🔹 Background
• They lost their tenancy after receiving a custodial sentence.
• This was unexpected: a Probation Service Pre-Sentence Report
the day before sentencing recommended a community penalty or
financial penalty, not custody.
• Because prison was imposed, the tenancy was surrendered.
🔹 Council’s Decisions So Far
• The council issued a decision under s.184 Housing Act 1996,
finding them intentionally homeless.
• A s.202 review was requested, with limited legal aid support.
• Legal aid is usually only available where there’s imminent
street homelessness. Because my friend is now in long-term
supported housing (up to 2 years), they no longer meet the
threshold.
• They were advised that if the s.202 review is unsuccessful,
they should return to the solicitor, who may be able to seek
counsel’s view on a judicial review with a barrister.
🔹 Main Legal Arguments in the s.202 Review
Their solicitor submitted the following points:
1. Misapplication of the Intentional Homelessness Test
o The law requires both a deliberate act and knowledge that
homelessness would probably result.
o With the Probation Report recommending a non-custodial
sentence, imprisonment (and homelessness) was not reasonably
foreseeable.
2. Failure to Consider Relevant Evidence
o Probation Pre-Sentence Report (25 March 2024).
o GP and medical evidence warning of serious health risks from
homelessness.
o Proof of arrears payments (50% lump sum + Direct Debit set
up).
3. Procedural Impropriety / Maladministration
o The council relied heavily on the housing association’s
account, without proper investigation.
o Internal council notes (from a Subject Access Request) show
they knew arrears were being repaid, yet still linked suspension
from the local housing application network to intentionality.
o FOI disclosures confirm there is no written procedure for
probation liaison and that landlord protocols are outdated.
4. Breach of the Equality Act 2010 & Public Sector Equality Duty
o Council officers recorded that if intentionality was upheld,
the applicant “would be rough sleeping.”
o Despite recognising this, they failed to consider Equality Act
duties or make reasonable adjustments.
5. Irrationality (Wednesbury Unreasonableness)
o Ignoring the probation report, medical evidence, and arrears
compliance, while relying on unverified landlord information,
was perverse.
o No reasonable authority could have reached the same
conclusion.
🔹 Consequences
• The day after the intentional homelessness decision, my friend
was suspended from the local housing application network.
• Council notes confirm suspension was directly linked to the
intentionality decision, not arrears.
• As a result, they missed multiple bidding cycles and were
dropped from a new-build property offer.
• They remain disadvantaged in securing permanent housing,
despite being in supported accommodation.
🔹 Current Position
• The s.202 review decision is pending.
• If negative, they intend to lodge a s.204 County Court appeal
within 21 days.
• Legal aid won’t cover them now, so they may need to
self-represent or seek pro bono/direct access help.
• Their appeal bundle will include:
o Skeleton Argument,
o FOI evidence (systemic failings),
o Subject Access Request extracts (council’s own records),
o Probation report,
o GP letter,
o Housing association arrears/payment records,
o Local housing application network bidding history (awaited).
Questions for Advice
1. Is the Probation Report likely to defeat the “foreseeability”
element of intentional homelessness?
2. Does the council’s failure to apply Equality Act duties make
the decision unlawful on its own?
3. Will the FOI and SAR disclosures (systemic failures, no
probation liaison, outdated landlord protocol) carry weight in
court?
4. Since they are in supported housing, is there any point in
applying for interim relief (reinstatement to the register)
pending appeal?
5. What are the best options for representation or pro bono help
at the s.204 stage, given legal aid isn’t available?
Thank you for reading all of this, and hopefully you can advise!
#Post#: 92012--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intentional Homelessness / s.202 Review / s.204 Appeal
By: disgruntchelt Date: September 29, 2025, 9:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your friend committed a crime where a prison sentence is a
possibility so the council’s argument is made.
The probation report happened after the crime so wasn’t relevant
at the time your friend committed the act that lead to them
being intentionally homeless.
I do love the chupazz of, well this country is soft on crime so
I didn’t really think I’d be imprisoned for doing x
#Post#: 92017--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intentional Homelessness / s.202 Review / s.204 Appeal
By: CBankie Date: September 29, 2025, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your thoughts, but the law is more precise than you
suggest.
The test under s.191 Housing Act 1996 isn’t whether prison was a
remote possibility. The standard is whether homelessness was a
likely consequence of the applicant’s act or omission. The
Homelessness Code of Guidance confirms that where custody is
involved, the authority must ask whether, at the time of the
offence, the loss of accommodation could reasonably have been
regarded as a likely outcome. The Code also makes clear that
councils should consult the Probation Service in such cases.
That’s why a Pre-Sentence Report is directly relevant: if a
probation officer recommended a community disposal or fine the
day before sentencing, that is compelling evidence custody was
not reasonably likely. To ignore it and instead treat
imprisonment as automatically foreseeable is to misapply the
intentional homelessness test. Courts have reinforced this:
decision-makers must consider causation and later events (see
Haile v Waltham Forest [2015] UKSC 34) and must also apply the
Equality Act duty (see Pieretti v Enfield [2010] EWCA Civ 1104)
when disabilities are in play.
So, with respect, the legal threshold isn’t satisfied simply by
saying, “Well, prison is always a possibility.” That approach
confuses possibility with likelihood, and it’s precisely why the
law requires individualised assessment and regard to probation
input.
As for the word “chupazz” — I think you meant chutzpah. In this
context though, it’s not about bravado or cheek; it’s about
ensuring that councils apply the law correctly rather than
cutting corners with assumptions.
#Post#: 92066--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intentional Homelessness / s.202 Review / s.204 Appeal
By: dannyno Date: September 29, 2025, 1:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I notice you've mentioned the Equality Act. How does the
Equality Act apply?
#Post#: 92081--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intentional Homelessness / s.202 Review / s.204 Appeal
By: CBankie Date: September 29, 2025, 2:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That’s a good question. The Equality Act 2010 applies here
through the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in section 149.
Local authorities making homelessness decisions are carrying out
a public function, so they must have “due regard” to:
eliminating discrimination,
advancing equality of opportunity for disabled people, and
fostering good relations.
Case law has made it clear that this isn’t a box-ticking
exercise. For example, in Pieretti v Enfield LBC [2010] EWCA Civ
1104, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the PSED applies to
individual homelessness decisions, including intentional
homelessness. If the applicant has a disability, the council
must properly investigate the impact and show how it weighed
that factor when reaching its decision.
Other cases like Bracking v Secretary of State for Work &
Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1345 explain that the PSED requires a
conscious and rigorous focus — decision letters need to
demonstrate the duty was applied in practice, not just referred
to in passing.
So in a situation where someone has long-term health conditions
(physical or mental) that affect their ability to cope with
homelessness, the authority has to factor that in when deciding
whether a finding of intentionality is proportionate. If they
don’t, the decision can be unlawful.
#Post#: 92098--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intentional Homelessness / s.202 Review / s.204 Appeal
By: Southpaw82 Date: September 29, 2025, 4:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How long are you going to keep feeding us output from ChatGPT?
#Post#: 92100--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intentional Homelessness / s.202 Review / s.204 Appeal
By: mickR Date: September 29, 2025, 4:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=6837]CBankie[/member]
you said in your post#1
[quote]I’m posting on behalf of my friend, who would like advice
on their homelessness case. [/quote]
but you appear to have all the answers anyway, so what exactly
are you looking for?
#Post#: 92101--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intentional Homelessness / s.202 Review / s.204 Appeal
By: CBankie Date: September 29, 2025, 5:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=4]Southpaw82[/member] This is all on behalf of a friend
who’s in a difficult situation. They don’t have the capacity to
draft long explanations themselves, so I’ve been helping to put
their case into clearer words. Some of it is based on legal
references and guidance, but the aim is simply to get accurate
advice and check nothing important is being missed. I welcome
constructive input from others who’ve been through similar
situations as it is a minefield to anybody new to the topic.
#Post#: 92102--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intentional Homelessness / s.202 Review / s.204 Appeal
By: CBankie Date: September 29, 2025, 5:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=75]mickR[/member] It may come across that way because
I’m helping my friend organise a lot of material, but they
definitely don’t have all the answers. What they’re really
looking for are insights from others with experience — whether
that’s how councils handle reviews in practice, how Equality Act
arguments are treated, or what tends to carry weight at appeal.
Lived experience is something guidance notes can’t always
provide.
#Post#: 92142--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intentional Homelessness / s.202 Review / s.204 Appeal
By: dannyno Date: September 30, 2025, 5:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=CBankie link=topic=8218.msg92081#msg92081
date=1759172715]
That’s a good question. The Equality Act 2010 applies here
through the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in section 149.
Local authorities making homelessness decisions are carrying out
a public function, so they must have “due regard” to:
eliminating discrimination,
advancing equality of opportunity for disabled people, and
fostering good relations.
Case law has made it clear that this isn’t a box-ticking
exercise. For example, in Pieretti v Enfield LBC [2010] EWCA Civ
1104, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the PSED applies to
individual homelessness decisions, including intentional
homelessness. If the applicant has a disability, the council
must properly investigate the impact and show how it weighed
that factor when reaching its decision.
Other cases like Bracking v Secretary of State for Work &
Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1345 explain that the PSED requires a
conscious and rigorous focus — decision letters need to
demonstrate the duty was applied in practice, not just referred
to in passing.
So in a situation where someone has long-term health conditions
(physical or mental) that affect their ability to cope with
homelessness, the authority has to factor that in when deciding
whether a finding of intentionality is proportionate. If they
don’t, the decision can be unlawful.
[/quote]
Mmm. But how does the Equality Act or the Public Sector
Equality Duty apply to your friend in this case? You haven't
mentioned that they have any relevant protected characteristics
or long-term physical or mental health conditions.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page