A full report on Birmingham v Ali and Moran v Manchester [2009] UKL 36 will follow in due course, but for those of you who simply can’t wait for your fix of House of Lords homelessness judgments, the headline is that both appeals are allowed to limited extents. For clarity, Birmingham v Ali is the Aweys v Birmingham appeal.
Baroness Hale, with whom their Lordships all agreed said that Birmingham can decide that a family is homeless because it is not reasonable to remain in their present accommodation indefinitely and to accommodate them for as long as it is suitable as short term accommodation. However, they can’t leave them there until a house becomes available under the allocation scheme. Birmingham’s allocation scheme was unlawful to the extent that it gave preference to people in one type of temporary accommodation that was no less satisfactory than the accomodation of those homeless at home.
In Moran although there may be circumstances in which it is reasonable to remain in a refuge indefinitely, there was nothing to suggest that it would be in this case. The finding that Ms Moran had become homeless from the refuge intentionally was quashed.
We reported the Court of Appeal decision in Aweys (as it was known at the time) here and in Moran here.