Source: https://england.shelter.org.uk/legal/homelessness_applications/intentional_homelessness/establishing_intentionality/causation
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 03:02:37+00:00

Document:
An explanation of the causal link between the deliberate act or omission, and the loss of accommodation which must exist for an applicant to be found to be intentionally homeless .
secondly, whether the applicant's homelessness at the time of the authority's decision (or review decision if applicable) was caused by that deliberate act or omission, or whether a later intervening event constituting an involuntary cause of homelessness meant that s/he would have become homeless anyway by the time of the decision on her/his application.
See the page A deliberate act or omission for more information on what constitutes a deliberate act.
Where there is more than one possible cause of homelessness, it is for the local authority to decide whether at least one of them was a deliberate act or omission on the part of the applicant.
The court has held that there must have been a reasonable likelihood that the act or omission would lead to homelessness and the consequences must not be too remote from the action.
The Homelessness Code of Guidance says that the authority must decide whether the loss of the home was the reasonably likely result of a deliberate act or omission, and whether or not it is a matter of cause and effect. If there is no clear connection then it would be inappropriate to see the applicant as intentionally homeless. For example, if an employee in tied accommodation lied to her/his employers, was sacked and therefore lost her/his accommodation, the local authority could find her/him intentionally homeless only if it is satisfied that s/he must have known the consequences of her/his action.
The authority may look back beyond the incident that was the immediate cause of homelessness to see what was the start of the chain of events which led to the homelessness. This means that the most recent action may not be treated as the deliberate act in question.
In one case a drug-dealer was sent to prison, and despite making arrangements for his sister to pay his rent, she failed to pay anything and he lost his home through the failure to pay. The court did not accept the argument that the breakdown of the arrangement to pay rent was the cause of the homelessness. It held that the start of the chain of events was his decision to supply drugs and his ignorance of the fact that his sister was not paying the rent was irrelevant. However, the court conceded the outcome might possibly have been different had the arrangement for rent payments taken effect for at least some period of time and then subsequently broken down.
The authority can consider whether there is any intentional homelessness from any of the accommodation which the applicant has lived in, from the most recent accommodation and then going back to the last 'settled' accommodation (see below). The Code gives an example of someone who voluntarily gives up settled accommodation which it is reasonable for her/him to continue to occupy, moves into short term accommodation and then becomes homeless when the term ends. It says that authorities will therefore need to look back to the last period of settled accommodation and the reasons why the applicant left that accommodation.
The chain of causation can only be broken by a material change of circumstances or occupation of 'settled' accommodation.
The applicant's deliberate act or omission must still be the cause of the applicant's homelessness at the time of the authority's decision on her homeless application or, if applicable, its review decision. An involuntary event occurring after the applicant left her/his accommodation can break the chain of causation where s/he would have become homeless in any event. In a case considered by the Supreme Court, the applicant had voluntarily left a single persons' hostel when pregnant, however she had given birth to a child by the time of the authority's decision into her homelessness application, which meant that she would undeniably have been evicted from the hostel by that time. As such the applicant was not intentionally homeless. This is sometimes referred to as a 'supervening event'.
In another Court of Appeal decision, the Court examined the chain of causation where there were numerous factors contributing to homelessness. A former council tenant exercised the right to buy despite having a history of rent arrears and other debt. When she later fell into arrears after her husband lost his job, the Court held that the chain of causation had not been broken by the husband being unable to work. The applicant's financial history meant that it was inevitable that she would fall into mortgage arrears. It was appropriate for the council to consider all the facts, including the situation prior to the property being purchased. The couple should never have bought the property.
There is no definition of settled accommodation in the Housing Act 1996, however, there have been a number of cases on the issue. Whether accommodation is settled is a question of 'fact and degree'. Factors that are relevant include the length of occupation, the security of tenure, the intentions of the parties, and how 'precarious' the occupation is (ie whether there is a constant threat of eviction).
Although a private sector assured shorthold tenancy would generally constitute settled accommodation, there will none the less be circumstances in which a person holding such a tenancy could still be 'precariously' housed, eg as in the case where an assured shorthold tenant was expressly informed at the outset that her tenancy would not be continued after six months.
In one case, the court held that the issue was not whether the parties had initially intended a temporary or permanent arrangement but whether, as the months and years passed, what started out as 'unsettled' developed 'settled' characteristics.
lived as a licensee (paying rent) in an employer’s home for two years, when at all times it was understood the applicant would leave when the employer’s son returned from university and that he would vacate the room for the times when the son came home during the holidays .
Where an applicant has lost (or may lose) her/his home because there is a probability of violence if they had continued to occupy it, s/he may be offered help to mitigate the risk of violence. If this is turned down, the authority is not entitled to conclude that the help to mitigate the violence would have been successful. It is therefore the violence that is the cause of homelessness, not the applicant's decision not to accept help, so such a refusal should not lead to a decision of intentional homelessness.
Where an applicant has spent a period in custody, during which s/he lost her/his accommodation, the authority must look at whether, taking into account all of the circumstances, the loss of accommodation could reasonably been regarded as a likely consequence of committing the offence.
Ex-service personnel should not be considered intentionally homeless if they have had to vacate service quarters upon taking up an option to give notice to leave the service, where they have done so in compliance with their contractual engagement.
The Code of Guidance advises that local authorities should try to avoid making intentionally homeless decisions in relation to care leavers aged 18 to 25. Before making a decision, the authority should consult with the relevant children's services to understand the young person's emotional and mental wellbeing, maturity and general ability to understand the impact of their actions.
 Haile v Waltham Forest LBC  UKSC 34.
 Noel & Anor v Hillingdon LBC  EWCA Civ 1602.
 R v Hounslow, ex parte R (1997) 29 HLR 939, QBD.
 para 9.13 Homelessness Code of Guidance, MHCLG, Feb 2018.
 R v Thanet DC, ex parte Reeve (1981) 6 HLR 31, QBD.
 Steward v Kingston upon Thames LBC  EWCA Civ 565.
 Stewart v Lambeth LBC  EWCA Civ 753.
 Godson v Enfield LBC  EWCA Civ 486; R v Brent LBC, ex parte Awua (1995) 27 HLR 453, HL.
 R v Brent LBC, ex parte Awua (1995) 27 HLR 453, HL.
 R v Harrow LBC, ex parte Fahia (1998) 30 HLR 1124, HL; R v Hackney LBC, ex parte Ajayi (1998) 30 H.L.R. 473 ; R v Brighton BC, ex parte Harvey (1997) 30 HLR 670, QBD; R v Basingstoke and Deane BC, ex parte Bassett (1983) 10 HLR 125, QBD.
 Haile v Waltham Forest LBC  UKSC 34; see also para 9.14 Homelessness Code of Guidance, MHCLG, Feb 2018.
 Watchman v Ipswich BC  EWCA Civ 348.
 Din v Wandsworth LBC  1 AC 657; R v Winchester CC, ex parte Ashton (1991) 24 HLR 48, QBD; R v Kyle and Carrick DC, ex parte Robson  Court of Session, Legal Action March 1994; R v Rochester CC, ex parte Williams (1994) 26 HLR 588, QBD.
 para 9.15 Homelessness Code of Guidance, MHCLG, Feb 2018.
 Knight v Vale RBC  EWCA Civ 1258.
 Cross v Solihull MBC  Birmingham County Court, Legal Action August 2000.
 Huda v Redbridge LBC  EWCA Civ 709.
 Doka v Southwark LBC  EWCA Civ 1532.
 paras 21.28 to 21.30 Homelessness Code of Guidance, MHCLG, Feb 2018.
 paras 23.21 and 23.22 Homelessness Code of Guidance, MHCLG, Feb 2018.
 para 24.11 Homelessness Code of Guidance, MHCLG, Feb 2018.
 para 22.17 Homelessness Code of Guidance, MHCLG, Feb 2018.

References: UKSC 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 UKSC 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA