The House of Lords issued judgement in the case of Birmingham City Council and Another v Ali and Others [2009] UKHL 36 on 1st July 2009. The case concerned claims against local housing authorities in Birmingham and Manchester as to their duties towards homeless people under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. In the Birmingham case the question facing the court was whether it was open to the council to keep a family in overcrowded interim accommodation whilst seeking suitable permanent accommodation. In the Manchester case a woman who had fled the family home with her two children following domestic violence was placed in and subsequently evicted from a women’s refuge. Following relocation to temporary accommodation she was declared intentionally homeless under section 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996. The issue here was the lawfulness of the councils finding that the woman was intentionally homeless due to her behaviour towards staff at the refuge.

Pursuant to section 175(3) of the Housing Act 1996 “A person will not be treated as having accommodation unless it is accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy”. Allowing the appeal in Birmingham the House of Lords held that although it may be lawful to leave them there for the short-term, the council could not discharge their duties under section 193(2) of the Act simply by putting these families on the waiting list for permanent council accommodation. Allowing the appeal in Manchester the House of Lords established the principle that in most cases, a woman who has left her home due to domestic violence will remain homeless even if she has been placed temporarily in a women’s refuge as it would never have been reasonable under section 175(3) for the woman to continue to occupy the refuge indefinitely.