Night shelters and occupation as a home.

I’ve just managed to get an adjournment while I tried to produce some more arguments for a judge at an appeal.  The claimant was living in a night shelter where they shared a dormitory and had to leave, taking their belongings, such as they were, each morning, booking in again in the evening.

The judge is saying that he is minded to treat the place as not having the characteristics of a home because of this.  If followed this would have excluded every night shelter in the country for some years, but nonetheless the judge is saying that everyone else is out of step.

I had never heard this one in heaven knows how many years working in the field, but it does have a horrible sort of logic to it.  I am arguing that the test of a home is a comparative one (e.g. where else could be called home) and the the occupation of the home lasted from the evening to the morining.  I’d be grateful for any other ideas.

I have a feeling that there may be some case law not directly connected to the situation which may be relevant.  I’m aware of the case where a claimant lived on a barge and was subsequently found to be homeless under housing legislation, but was nonetheless found to be eligible for HB, but I can’t think of anything else.

Not sure this adds much but on the offchance…

If I’ve understood this correctly, the issue (at least so far) isn’t about the definition of “dwelling”.  It is solely about the nature of occupancy.

s.130(1)(a) of the SSCBA uses the phrase “...occupies as his home” and HBR 7(1) states “Subject to the following provisions of this regulation, a person shall be treated as occupying as his home the dwelling normally occupied as his home….”

Just some idle thoughts…

-  Can it be argued that for the period of time the clmt is a “guest” of the night shelter, it is undoubtedly his “home” for THAT period and that the temporary nature of the overall stay doesn’t negate that?

-  It is perverse to construe the legislation so narrowly that a person cannot be regarded as occupying accommodation as a “home” when there is no alternative available to him/her.

-  Would the effect of such a narrow interpretation engage Articles 8 and 14?

-  What about B & B accommodation?  That also operates on a “guest” basis and it’s very nature is such that stays are temporary.  HB legislation makes express provision for B & B accommodation in the context of requiring Rent Officer referrals where there is “substantial board”.  Surely such provision demonstrates an inherent acceptance by the legislator that temporary accommodation is envisaged as being a “home” for HB purposes?  Anecdotally, I have heard some B & Bs have a “no stay during the day” policy.

-  Don’t some LAs regularly put people in hotel accommodation on a temporary basis and isn’t HB payable on these?  Similar arguments to the B & B accommodation.

In anticipation of the meaning of “home” having some crossover with “dwelling”, does Uratemp Ventures Limited (res) v Collins (ap) [2001] UKHL 43 assist at all?  It may be useful at least to the extent of possibly supporting an argument that there can be a home even without cooking facilities.

Thanks for that.

I am indeed in the odd position where the judge has ruled that the relevant building is a dwelling, but does not accept that it is occupied as a home. Quite how you can pay to occupy a dwelling when you have no other and not have it classed as your home I don’t know, but that’s where we are at.

I’m arguing that something must be a home if it is a dwelling and it is not excluded somewhere else in the regs (eg because its a care home, tent etc. but I think the judge has some idea of a house, hearth and jolly family life in his head.

He seems to have the view that most people in board and lodging etc are there on a permanent basis.

Any further ideas from anyone welcome.

This could be approached from two opposite ends.  The Oxford dictionary defines home as, among other things, “the place where one lives” and a “dwelling house”.  Now taking one view a person when asked “where do you live” could reply “I Live at 22 High Street” (the address of the night shelter).  On an initial reading it could be the person’s home.

On the other hand if the manager of the night shelter was asked what kind of establishment is this he could reply “this is not a dwelling house it is a night shelter for the homeless, a largely transient clientele with one or two long stayers”.

On this reading the clientele are homeless and it would be entirely reasonable to say that for them they do not occupy the dwelling as their home.  However, I think that is too rigid an application.  For the largely transient population I think it reasonable.  However, for the small number of more ‘permanent’ clients (if that is indeed the case) a case can certainly be made that in many respects, at least for them, the shelter has become some sort of home.  For them there is a degree of permanence.

I think more facts need to emerge and the situation of the shelter itself needs further exploration.  For example, are beds allocated each evening on a first come first served basis or is a client allocated a bed on some sort of permanent or semi-permanent basis, with or without further conditions.  I think that there is much more to be explored here and you should try and find some support in housing law cases (Uratemp v Collins is a good place to start as Kevin has suggested) and human rights law.

There are also useful analogies, already mentioned, with boarding houses.  The big difference though which worries me is that they have to take their belongings with them each morning when they leave and I suspect that there is no guarantee of any person being given a bed when they arrive each evening.