Intentionally Homeless
Quick links
Introduction
A person will be treated as intentionally homeless if the following four conditions are met:
- they enter into an arrangement which means they can no longer occupy the accommodation;
- it was reasonable for them to have continued to occupy the accommodation;
- the purpose of the arrangement is to enable them to become entitled to assistance as a homeless person;
- there is no other good reason why they are homeless or threatened with homelessness.
Good reasons for leaving an accommodation and not being intentionally homeless might include overcrowding in a home, or a clear breakdown in relations between the applicant and their host or landlord. The council will need to be satisfied that these circumstances exist. They cannot just rely on word of mouth or suspicion.
Who in the household is held responsible for intentional homelessness?
If one member of the household has been found to be homeless intentionally, other members of the household (“cohabitees”) can still make a separate homeless application. This is because the cohabitees may not be responsible, or even aware, of the behaviour which has resulted in the intentional homeless (e.g. an individual may be unaware that their partner is deliberately not paying the rent). The relevant legislation can be found here.
However, if the cohabitees have participated in this behaviour, the council may also treat them as intentionally homeless. The council will consider whether the cohabitees’ behaviour was due to a fear of violence.
Ceasing to occupy accommodation
For intentional homelessness to be established, there must have been actual occupation of accommodation which has stopped. The loss of accommodation doesn’t have to be within the UK. Housing authorities have been told that applicants cannot be considered to have become intentionally homeless because of failing to take up an offer of accommodation.
For example, where a landlord wants to sell a property or move back into it, if the landlord evicts the tenant, then even if the tenant had high rent arrears, this will not be intentional homelessness because the property would not have been available anyway.
Consequence of a deliberate act or omission (failure to act)
For homelessness to be intentional, a person must have lost their home due to something they have deliberately done (or failed to do). The authority must then decide whether the loss of the home was reasonably likely to result from the person’s action (or failure to act).
If there is no clear connection between their act (or failure to act), it’s unlikely that they will be considered as intentionally homeless. For example, if an employee in accommodation provided by their employer was sacked (e.g. for misconduct) and therefore lost their accommodation, the local authority could find them intentionally homeless if they are satisfied that the individual knew the consequences of their actions. However, if for example the conditions of the property made it unsuitable to live in or they were at risk of violence, it would not be reasonable to continue occupying the property and the individual would not be considered intentionally homeless.
No longer being intentionally homeless
A person will remain intentionally homeless, until the link between the act (or failure to act) which resulted in the applicant becoming intentionally homeless and the intentional homelessness has been broken. It could be broken by an event which, irrespective of any act or omission on the part of the applicant, would have itself led to them being homeless at the point at which the housing authority was carrying out inquiries into their application for assistance.
An event out of a person’s control that occurs after they left their accommodation could break this link if, as a result of the event they would have become homeless regardless. For example, a woman who left a single person’s hostel off her own accord would ordinarily be considered intentionally homeless if there was no good reason for them to leave. However, if the woman was pregnant at the time and had given birth by the time the authority had decided on her application, she would undeniably have been evicted from the hostel at that time. This would be enough to break the link (the chain of causation), and as such, the applicant would no longer be considered to be intentionally homeless.
Deliberate act or omission
For homelessness to be intentional, the act or failure to act that led to the loss of accommodation must have been deliberate, and applicants must always be given the opportunity to explain such behaviour. An act or failure to act should not generally be treated as deliberate, even where deliberately carried out, if it is forced upon the applicant through no fault of their own.
Generally, an act or omission should not be considered deliberate where:
- the act or failure to act was the non-payment of rent or mortgage costs which arose from financial difficulties which were beyond the applicant’s control, or were the result of Housing Benefit or Universal Credit delays;
- the housing authority has reason to believe the applicant is incapable of managing their own affairs, e.g. due to their young or old age, mental illness or disability;
- the act or failure to act was the result of limited mental capacity, mental illness or an assessed substance misuse problem;
- the act or failure to act was made when the applicant was under duress;
- where the applicant’s lack of foresight led to homelessness but the act or omission was in good faith.
An applicant’s actions will not amount to intentional homelessness where they have lost their home, or were obliged to sell it, because of rent or mortgage arrears resulting from significant financial difficulties, and the applicant was genuinely unable to keep up the rent or mortgage payments even after claiming benefits, and no further financial help was available.
Examples of acts or failures to act which may be considered as deliberate are where someone:
- chooses to sell their home in circumstances where they are under no risk of losing it;
- has lost their home because of a repeated refusal to pay rent or mortgage payments;
- could be said to have significantly neglected their affairs having disregarded advice from qualified specialists/advisers;
- voluntarily surrenders suitable accommodation in this country or abroad which it would have been reasonable for them to continue to occupy;
- is evicted because of their anti-social behaviour, nuisance to neighbours or harassment;
- is evicted because of violence or threats of violence or abuse by them towards another person;
- leaves a job with tied accommodation and the circumstances indicate that it would have been reasonable for them to continue in the employment and reasonable to continue to occupy the accommodation.
In addition, for homelessness to be intentional, the accommodation must have been available for the applicant, their household and any other person reasonably expected to live with them.
An applicant cannot be treated as intentionally homeless unless it would have been reasonable for them to have continued to occupy the accommodation. It will be necessary for the housing authority to give careful consideration to the circumstances of the applicant and the household, in each case, and with particular care in cases where violence and abuse has been alleged.
Deliberate act or omission (ex-prisoner)
The council may decide that an ex-prisoner is intentionally homeless and therefore only entitled to limited support upon release.
Examples of acts or failures to act which may be considered deliberate are where the individual has lost their home because they:
- were convicted of a serious offence;
- did not pay rent when they were in prison;
- gave up their tenancy when they could have kept it.
Act or omissions in good faith
Acts or failures to act in good faith where an individual was genuinely unaware of a relevant fact should not be regarded as deliberate. Provided that the applicant has acted in good faith, there is no requirement that ignorance of the relevant fact be reasonable. An act or failure to act will not be in good faith where it was dishonest.
Other examples of acts or failures to act that could be made in good faith might include situations where:
- a person gets into rent arrears, being unaware that they may be entitled to Housing Benefit, Universal Credit or other social security benefits;
- a home owner is faced with possession proceedings to which there is no defence, sells before the mortgagee recovers possession through the courts or surrenders the property to the lender; or,
- a tenant, faced with possession proceedings to which there would be no defence, and where the granting of a possession order would be mandatory, surrenders the property to the landlord.
In (3) although the housing authority may consider that it would have been reasonable for the tenant to continue to occupy the accommodation, the act should not be regarded as deliberate if the tenant made the decision to leave the accommodation and was unaware of relevant facts.
Applicant enters into an arrangement/colludes to make themselves intentionally homeless
Housing authorities will need to be alert to the possibility of collusion by which a person may claim that they are obliged to leave available accommodation that would have been reasonable for them to continue to occupy in order to take advantage of the homelessness legislation and benefit from assistance.
Collusion isn’t necessarily just with friends and family – it also happens between landlords and tenants, so the local authority will be wary of this. However, local authorities will need to be satisfied that collusion exists, and cannot simply rely on hearsay or unfounded suspicions in finding that an applicant became intentionally homeless.
For collusion to amount to intentional homelessness, the legislation specifies that there should be no other good reason for the applicant’s homelessness. Examples of other good reasons include overcrowding or an obvious breakdown in relations between the applicant and their host or landlord. In some cases involving collusion the applicant may not actually be homeless, if there is no genuine need for the applicant to leave the accommodation.