London Borough of Enfield (Respondent) v A (Appellant)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0200

Parties

Appellant(s)

Respondent(s)

London Borough of Enfield

Issue

The lawfulness of an out of borough placement made available to a homeless applicant. In particular: Does the scope of an appeal to the County Court under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 include a breach of the duty under section 208(2) and (4) to notify the host borough of an out of borough placement? In circumstances where a housing applicant cannot be accommodated with their district, what is the extent of the local authority’s obligation under section 208 to secure accommodation that is as close as reasonably practicable to the applicant’s former home?

Facts

While Appellant ("A") was living in the London Borough of Enfield (“Enfield” or “the Respondent”), A was the victim of domestic abuse perpetrated by her ex-partner, MB. She was badly assaulted in June and July 2022 and MB was convicted in January 2023 on three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was given a custodial sentence of 20 months and was the subject of a restraining order for 5 years. On 4 August 2022, A applied to Enfield for homelessness assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”). On 15 November 2022, Enfield notified A that it accepted that it owed her a duty to secure accommodation under section 193 of the 1996 Act as a person with priority need who became homeless unintentionally. A did not wish to be accommodated in Enfield due to her fear of violence at the hands of MB, and his family and friends. On 17 April 2023, Enfield offered A temporary accommodation in Studio B. Studio B is located in the neighbouring London Borough of Haringey (“Haringey”) and is approximately 1 ½ miles from Enfield. A accepted the offer and moved in but requested a review of the suitability of the accommodation under section 202 of the 1996 Act. In a review decision dated 21 July 2023, Enfield concluded that Studio B was suitable accommodation. On 8 November 2023, Enfield notified Haringey that A had been accommodated in their district. On 7 August 2024, the County Court allowed A’s appeal against the review decision and quashed that decision. Enfield appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal in a judgment handed down on 27 October 2025. A now seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.