The Court of Appeal rules unlawful attempts to force a homeless family to live 170 miles from their previous home CASE NO: CA-2022-001589 - ZAMAN v LONDON BOROUGH OF WALTHAM FOREST

Ms Zaman and her children were made homeless after a relationship breakdown. No longer able to afford her privately rented home, she sought assistance from her local authority, the London Borough of Waltham Forest. Ms Zaman and her children had lived in Waltham Forest for many years and enjoyed a support network of wider family, friends and services. Ms Zaman had also recently secured part-time work.

The Council had a statutory duty to secure suitable accommodation for Ms Zaman in its borough insofar as was reasonably practicable. However, it stated that it could not find accommodation in borough and offered her accommodation in Stoke-on-Trent, over 160 miles away. Ms Zaman refused the accommodation as being too far away from her support networks and family, including the children’s father. Waltham Forest claimed that nothing else was available for the family either in or closer to its borough and discharged its duty to provide her with accommodation. It also maintained that in any event because Ms Zaman was subject to the benefit cap she could not afford anything closer to London.

Ms Zaman appealed unsuccessfully in the county court. The judge held that the Council’s procurement policy was lawful and the fact that the Council had sent very many families to Stoke was not legally problematic. The Court of Appeal allowed Ms Zaman’s second appeal. In a judgment handed down today, Newey LJ rejected Waltham Forest’s arguments and confirmed that local housing authorities have a duty to “secure accommodation that is as close as possible to where an applicant was previously living.” Moreover, demonstrating compliance with the duty requires local authorities to evidence what steps they have taken to find accommodation close to their area. In this case, although the Council had a policy that it would look for accommodation as close as possible to Waltham Forest, there was a dearth of evidence that it had actually done so.

The decision of the Court of Appeal is important for the rights of low-income homeless families caught by high rents in their areas. Councils cannot simply assume that affordable accommodation is not available locally and place families many miles away. Families should only find themselves having to move far away if their council can demonstrate objectively that despite its best efforts, nothing closer is available.

Ms Zaman was represented by Jamie Burton KC and Sian McGibbon. They were instructed by Marcin Brajta at Camden Community Law Centre.

The judgment is available here.