Housing

Homelessness - council tenant leaving flat after assault by neighbour - council admitting interim duty to rehouse - council under no duty to protect applicant's unoccupied flat against burglarsDeadman v Southwark London Borough Council: CA (Ward and Mantell LJJ): 26 July 2000

The claimant was granted a secure tenancy of a council flat in 1992.

She complained of severe harassment by a neighbour, culminating in June 1995 in a serious attack requiring hospital treatment.

Afraid to return home, she applied to the council for rehousing on the basis that she was unintentionally homeless.

The council admitted that it had a duty under s.63 of the Housing Act 1985 to provide accommodation pending inquiries, but none was provided.

Although the claimant expressed to the council her fears that her property would be stolen she was merely advised that the flat should be effectively locked and visited regularly, which she arranged.

In September 1995 the flat was burgled.

She claimed damages for losses in the burglary under s.70 of the 1985 Act.

The judge dismissed her action holding that no duty arose under s.70.

She appealed.

Lorna Tagliavini (instructed by Steel & Shamash) for the claimant.

Robert Bowker (instructed by Solicitor, Southwark London Borough Council) for the local authority.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that for a council to become subject to a duty under s.70 of the 1985 Act (now replaced in similar terms by s.211 of the Housing Act 1996) to protect the property of a person who was homeless or threatened with homelessness, the council had to have reason to believe that there was a danger of loss of that property and no other suitable arrangements had been or were being made; that 'danger' meant a real likelihood of harm, not merely a possibility of injury; and that, accordingly, on the facts the claim failed.