Cifci (Appellant) v London Borough Sutton (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0010

Parties

Appellant(s)

Muzzafer Cifci

Respondent(s)

London Borough Sutton

Issue

Is a person “intentionally homeless” for the purposes of section 191 Housing Act 1996 in circumstances where they are served with a landlord’s notice to vacate and subsequently decline an offer of accommodation from the local authority?

Facts

Until September 2018, the Appellant, Mr Cifci, lived with his family in privately rented accommodation. After receiving a notice by the landlord requiring him to leave that accommodation, Mr Cifci made a homelessness application to the London Borough of Bromley. From 18 September 2018, he and his family were accommodated by that authority under section 193(2) Housing Act 1996 (“HA 1996”) in accommodation at 22 Church Road, Croydon. On 8 November 2021, Mr Cifci was notified that the landlord intended to take back 22 Church Road and therefore he was required to vacate the property on or before 15 January 2022. On 14 January 2022, LB Bromley emailed Mr Cifci with an offer of accommodation at 357 Brighton Road in Croydon. Mr Cifci declined this offer as he considered the property unsuitable for his family. In response, LB Bromley notified Mr Cifci that it considered it had discharged its duties to him under the HA 1996. Accordingly, Mr Cifci was offered temporary accommodation at 226A High Street in Sutton for a period of 28 days to enable him to make alternative arrangements. Mr Cifci subsequently made a homelessness application to the Respondent, the London Borough of Sutton. In a letter dated 22 October 2022, LB Sutton informed Mr Cifci that, as Mr Cifci had made himself homeless intentionally, it did not have a duty to rehouse him. Mr Cifci requested a review of LB Sutton’s decision that he was intentionally homeless. In a letter dated 18 April 2024, the review officer upheld LB Sutton’s decision. Mr Cifci appealed to the County Court. On 2 December 2024, His Honour Judge Holmes dismissed the appeal. Mr Cifci then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which also dismissed the appeal. Mr Cifci now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

16 January 2026

Case origin

PTA

Back to top