In Samuels v Birmingham City Council (2019), the Supreme Court examined the duties of local authorities to provide suitable accommodation to individuals declared homeless.
The Court considered how far councils must follow guidance issued under the Housing Act 1996 (1996 Act) and by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and how benefit income interacts with assessments of intentional homelessness.
The label of intentional homelessness attracted significant criticism, as the case highlighted how unrealistic the concept can be in practice.
Ms Samuels’ situation
Ms Terryanne Samuels lived in privately rented accommodation in Birmingham with her four children.
She fell into rent arrears of just over £150, which placed her in financial difficulty. With no alternative support, she applied to the council and declared herself homeless.
Because she was caring for her children and reliant on social security benefits, she believed the council would fulfil its statutory duty to provide suitable accommodation. Instead, Birmingham City Council concluded that she was “intentionally homeless,” asserting that the shortfall could have been met through other benefits and that she was therefore owed no assistance.
The courts’ involvement
The dispute first reached the County Court, which upheld the council’s decision. However, concerns about ambiguity and injustice led the case to progress through the appellate courts.
Judges in the lower courts tended to accept the argument that the guidance issued to councils was not binding and that Ms Samuels had sufficient benefits that could have been redirected to housing costs. When the case reached the Supreme Court, the approach changed significantly. The Court delivered a unanimous judgment holding that the council was under a statutory duty to assist Ms Samuels and that the guidance should have been properly applied.
The council’s perception
The central legal question raised by Birmingham City Council was:
Does the 1996 Act permit the inclusion of benefits intended for purposes other than housing when assessing expenses relevant to the suitability of accommodation?
The council argued that all expenses should be considered collectively and without regard to their intended purpose. It characterised the 1996 Act and the 2006 guidance as mere recommendations. A council officer stated that Ms Samuels’ living allowance of seven hundred and fifty pounds was “excessive even for a family of that size.” On this basis, the council claimed that her general living benefits could have been used to prevent the shortfall, meaning she had no need to leave the property and was therefore intentionally homeless.
Essential guidance or mere recommendation
Section 191 of the 1996 Act establishes the duty of councils to secure accommodation for those who are homeless, provided they have not become homeless intentionally. It defines intentional homelessness as follows:
“Whether they deliberately did or failed to do anything in consequence of which they cease to occupy accommodation which was available for their occupation and which it would have been reasonable for them to continue to occupy.”
The Court therefore had to determine whether Ms Samuels met this statutory test.
Similarly, the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 sets out the factors that must be considered when assessing the suitability of accommodation previously occupied. These include:
• financial resources available• salary or fees• social security benefits
The Supreme Court’s response
The Supreme Court rejected the reasoning of the lower courts and held that Ms Samuels should not be required to divert her living expenses to cover rent. The Court accepted that all expenses were relevant but emphasised that requiring her to choose between feeding her children and paying rent would undermine the purpose of her benefits and impose unreasonable hardship.
The Court also found that her living expenses were not excessive but reasonable. Lord Carnwath, who delivered the judgment, criticised the ambiguity of the guidance provided to councils and expressed concern about the concept of intentional homelessness, noting that mitigating factors are often present.
The judgment was widely praised for preventing hardship and for adopting a broad, purposive approach rather than a narrow, literal interpretation of guidance.
Moving forward
The positive outcome in this case has encouraged many to hope for a more humane approach to the interaction between housing law and the benefits system. However, this may be only the beginning.
There is growing interest in monitoring cases involving individuals who rely entirely on benefits, to ensure they receive the same consideration as Ms Samuels. Whether councils will adopt a more realistic and compassionate perspective or continue to assert broad discretion remains to be seen.
Lord Carnwath expressed hope that councils would take guidance from this judgment, a sentiment shared by many members of the public.
Not sure how close you are to qualifying?
The path-fit quiz reads your situation and shows you which routes you are ready for, and exactly what to do next. Four minutes, no account needed to start.
Check your readiness