The Court of Appeal (CoA) has clarified the test for local connection to a local authority within the meaning of Section 199 of the Housing Act 1996.
Background:
Mr. Hussaini is a refugee who applied for asylum in 2020. While living in a refugee camp in Greece, he met Dr. Elena Isayev, who lives just beyond the boundaries of the borough of Islington and they maintained their friendship. Following his arrival in the UK, he was given asylum support accommodation, which, from September 2021, was located in the borough of Barking and Dagenham.
In late 2020, Mr. Hussaini was referred to the Baobab Centre for Young Survivors in Exile, based in Islington, which he attended at least three times a week. Having been granted leave to remain in the UK, Mr. Hussaini was required to leave his asylum support accommodation by the 17th of February 2022. On the 28th of January 2022, Mr. Hussaini applied to the local council for assistance.
The Council provided Mr. Hussaini with temporary accommodation in the borough of Haringey but, in a letter dated 9 March 2022, the Council informed Mr. Hussaini that, while it had decided that he was homeless and eligible for assistance, he had no "local connection" with Islington and so that his application should be referred to Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council. Mr. Hussaini disagreed, noting that his connection with Islington fell under the “special circumstances” within the meaning of Section 199(1)(d) Housing Act (HA) 1996, given his involvement with the Baobab Centre.
He sought a review and then appealed to the County Court without success before turning to the CoA.
Decision:
The CoA dismissed the appeal, affirming the Lower Court’s decision that he did not have a ‘local connection’. While his involvement with the Centre and his support network was significant, they did not establish a local connection as required by the Act. Based on the existing case law, the Court noted that “a ‘local connection’ exists where a person has a connection in a ‘real sense’ or ‘real terms’ with a local housing authority's district on account of one of the matters mentioned in Section 199(1) of the 1996 Act.” The local authority can look at “whether an applicant has a need to live in its district.”
The Judge goes on to note that “Were an applicant to be unable to access such services without living in the district, it is easy to see how the case for a ‘local connection’ as a result of ‘special circumstances’ could potentially be overwhelming. Where an applicant has to use such services frequently, that might possibly lead to the conclusion that there is a ‘local connection’, even without the applicant needing to live within the district itself, but a "local connection" may be less likely.”
Implications:
This decision clarifies the test for local connection applying to homeless applicants under the Housing Act 1996. It is clear that any applicant will have to demonstrate the overwhelming ‘need’ to live in a particular location. The outcome of this case might feel harsh and upsetting, especially for migrants who just moved to the UK and are only familiar with one locale. It will be difficult for those in such situations to argue they have a local connection and thus need to stay in a specific area.
The decision of Islington that Mr. Hussaini did not have a local connection was however not unreasonable and within the Council’s margin of appreciation.