Key Judgement Determines Future For The Welfare System

A single mother of four forced out of her home over a shortfall in housing benefit has been backed by the Supreme Court in a legal challenge to being designated intentionally homeless by one of Britain’s biggest councils.

Known only as ‘Ms Samuels’, she was using non-housing benefits intended to cover other living costs like food and clothing to cover the £35 weekly gap between her housing benefit and her rent. When she lost her private tenancy, she approached Birmingham city council for homeless assistance, saying she could not meet the shortfall. The council refused her request, telling her to use her non-housing benefits to plug the shortfall and decided she had intentionally become homeless.

Now, the Supreme Court says the council’s approach was unlawful. Delivering the judgement, Lord Carnwath said: “I find it hard to see on what basis the finding of intentional homelessness could be properly upheld.” In effect, the court found it was unlawful to force a tenant to spend money intended for basic daily living needs on their rent because housing benefit had been reduced – when benefit levels were not designed to provide a surplus above subsistence needs for the family. As such, the court decided unanimously that benefit levels provided in respect of children were relevant to assessing what was reasonable by way of their living expenses.

Speaking after the case, Ms Samuels said she was “delighted” with the verdict. “I have been fighting for so long for this, and have been suffering from the uncertainty of not knowing what will happen to me and the children,” she said. Both the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) and Shelter, who intervened in the case, said it was right that the court ruled it wrong to expect families to rely on money they need for basic living expenses to pay their rent when their housing benefit can’t cover it.

Shelter’s chief executive Polly Neate said it was an “important judgment for the future of the welfare system”. “We’re very pleased to see the court recognise that it’s not lawful to expect families to rely on money they need for their basic living expenses to pay their rent when their housing benefit can’t cover it,” said Neate,

“When someone is forced to choose between rent and keeping their children fed, they cannot be viewed as ‘intentionally’ homeless when they choose the latter. We are hearing from more and more families who are choosing between rent and absolute necessities like heating and food. We urge the government to lift the freeze and make sure benefits cover at least the lowest third of the rental market.”

Martin Williams, a welfare rights adviser at the Child Poverty Action Group said where benefit payments are set a bare minimum level for the basic essentials, no mother should have to see her children go short of essentials in order to pay the rent. “As the Court also observed, there is a current shortage of reliable objective guidance on reasonable levels of living expenditure to assist authorities in assessing the affordability of housing. We hope that the government will now address that shortfall based on the principles endorsed by the Supreme Court,” Williams said.

Stats show child homelessness in England has surged by 80% since 2010, with a new household now homeless every five minutes. Around 1.6 million adults rely on housing benefit to help with private rents, most of whom are women, but the benefit covers only a portion of private sector rent in 95% of England’s broad rental areas. Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rates have been frozen since April 2016 – although private rents have risen by 22% since 2010 – so inflation means the freeze is a cut in real terms.