Beach (Appellant) v South Hams District Council (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0123

Parties

Appellant(s)

Ivan Beach

Respondent(s)

South Hams District Council

Issue

Can a local housing authority refuse to provide the appellant with housing on the grounds that he was intentionally homeless because he refused to remain in the accommodation offered, when that accommodation did not have space for his children?

Facts

The respondent has a duty to provide accommodation to homeless persons in its area under the Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”). Under the Act, the respondent must consider a homeless person who resides with dependent children as in priority need for accommodation. The appellant applied to the respondent for accommodation for himself and his children under the Act on 24 November 2022. The appellant's six children were living with his ex-wife at the time of application, but the plan was for two of the children to reside with him in the future. On 13 January 2023 the respondents accepted that the appellant was homeless and was in priority need because he had dependent children who usually lived with him. The respondents offered the appellant accommodation at various times from January to March 2023, which the appellant refused. On 17 March 2023 the Family Court made a Child Arrangements Order that two of the children live with the Appellant. Following this, on 27 March 2023, the respondents accepted that they owed the full duty to house the appellant because his children would be living with him. Following police involvement, the children were removed from the appellants care and placed with their mother. The appellant was then offered accommodation at the Seascape Hotel (“the Hotel”) on 24 April 2025. The appellant stayed for one night, before leaving the accommodation. The respondents then notified the appellant that their duty to accommodate the appellant had ended. This was because he had made himself intentionally homeless, by not staying in the accommodation offered at the Hotel. The appellant requested review of that decision. The respondents affirmed their decision following review. The appellant appealed this review to the County Court in Plymouth. The County Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the accommodation provided to the appellant was reasonable for him to occupy in the short-term, even though his children could not live there. As such, the respondent had been entitled to conclude that he had made himself intentionally homeless. The appellant appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal, who dismissed the appeal and agreed with the County Court. The appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

21 July 2025

Case origin

PTA

Back to top