Free Traffic Legal Advice

Case Summary – Intentional Homelessness / s.202 Review / s.204 Appeal
I’m posting on behalf of my friend, who would like advice on their homelessness case. 


🔹 Background
• They lost their tenancy after receiving a custodial sentence.
• This was unexpected: a Probation Service Pre-Sentence Report the day before sentencing recommended a community penalty or financial penalty, not custody.
• Because prison was imposed, the tenancy was surrendered.

🔹 Council’s Decisions So Far
• The council issued a decision under s.184 Housing Act 1996, finding them intentionally homeless.
• A s.202 review was requested, with limited legal aid support.
• Legal aid is usually only available where there’s imminent street homelessness. Because my friend is now in long-term supported housing (up to 2 years), they no longer meet the threshold.
• They were advised that if the s.202 review is unsuccessful, they should return to the solicitor, who may be able to seek counsel’s view on a judicial review with a barrister.

🔹 Main Legal Arguments in the s.202 Review
Their solicitor submitted the following points:

1. Misapplication of the Intentional Homelessness Test
o The law requires both a deliberate act and knowledge that homelessness would probably result.
o With the Probation Report recommending a non-custodial sentence, imprisonment (and homelessness) was not reasonably foreseeable.
2. Failure to Consider Relevant Evidence
o Probation Pre-Sentence Report (25 March 2024).
o GP and medical evidence warning of serious health risks from homelessness.
o Proof of arrears payments (50% lump sum + Direct Debit set up).
3. Procedural Impropriety / Maladministration
o The council relied heavily on the housing association’s account, without proper investigation.
o Internal council notes (from a Subject Access Request) show they knew arrears were being repaid, yet still linked suspension from the local housing application network to intentionality.
o FOI disclosures confirm there is no written procedure for probation liaison and that landlord protocols are outdated.
4. Breach of the Equality Act 2010 & Public Sector Equality Duty
o Council officers recorded that if intentionality was upheld, the applicant “would be rough sleeping.”
o Despite recognising this, they failed to consider Equality Act duties or make reasonable adjustments.
5. Irrationality (Wednesbury Unreasonableness)
o Ignoring the probation report, medical evidence, and arrears compliance, while relying on unverified landlord information, was perverse.
o No reasonable authority could have reached the same conclusion.

🔹 Consequences
• The day after the intentional homelessness decision, my friend was suspended from the local housing application network.
• Council notes confirm suspension was directly linked to the intentionality decision, not arrears.
• As a result, they missed multiple bidding cycles and were dropped from a new-build property offer.
• They remain disadvantaged in securing permanent housing, despite being in supported accommodation.

🔹 Current Position
• The s.202 review decision is pending.
• If negative, they intend to lodge a s.204 County Court appeal within 21 days.
• Legal aid won’t cover them now, so they may need to self-represent or seek pro bono/direct access help.
• Their appeal bundle will include:
o Skeleton Argument,
o FOI evidence (systemic failings),
o Subject Access Request extracts (council’s own records),
o Probation report,
o GP letter,
o Housing association arrears/payment records,
o Local housing application network bidding history (awaited).

Questions for Advice
1. Is the Probation Report likely to defeat the “foreseeability” element of intentional homelessness?
2. Does the council’s failure to apply Equality Act duties make the decision unlawful on its own?
3. Will the FOI and SAR disclosures (systemic failures, no probation liaison, outdated landlord protocol) carry weight in court?
4. Since they are in supported housing, is there any point in applying for interim relief (reinstatement to the register) pending appeal?
5. What are the best options for representation or pro bono help at the s.204 stage, given legal aid isn’t available?

Thank you for reading all of this, and hopefully you can advise!

Thanks for your thoughts, but the law is more precise than you suggest.

The test under s.191 Housing Act 1996 isn’t whether prison was a remote possibility. The standard is whether homelessness was a likely consequence of the applicant’s act or omission. The Homelessness Code of Guidance confirms that where custody is involved, the authority must ask whether, at the time of the offence, the loss of accommodation could reasonably have been regarded as a likely outcome. The Code also makes clear that councils should consult the Probation Service in such cases.

That’s why a Pre-Sentence Report is directly relevant: if a probation officer recommended a community disposal or fine the day before sentencing, that is compelling evidence custody was not reasonably likely. To ignore it and instead treat imprisonment as automatically foreseeable is to misapply the intentional homelessness test. Courts have reinforced this: decision-makers must consider causation and later events (see Haile v Waltham Forest [2015] UKSC 34) and must also apply the Equality Act duty (see Pieretti v Enfield [2010] EWCA Civ 1104) when disabilities are in play.

So, with respect, the legal threshold isn’t satisfied simply by saying, “Well, prison is always a possibility.” That approach confuses possibility with likelihood, and it’s precisely why the law requires individualised assessment and regard to probation input.

As for the word “chupazz” — I think you meant chutzpah. In this context though, it’s not about bravado or cheek; it’s about ensuring that councils apply the law correctly rather than cutting corners with assumptions.

That’s a good question. The Equality Act 2010 applies here through the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) in section 149. Local authorities making homelessness decisions are carrying out a public function, so they must have “due regard” to:

eliminating discrimination,

advancing equality of opportunity for disabled people, and

fostering good relations.

Case law has made it clear that this isn’t a box-ticking exercise. For example, in Pieretti v Enfield LBC [2010] EWCA Civ 1104, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the PSED applies to individual homelessness decisions, including intentional homelessness. If the applicant has a disability, the council must properly investigate the impact and show how it weighed that factor when reaching its decision.

Other cases like Bracking v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1345 explain that the PSED requires a conscious and rigorous focus — decision letters need to demonstrate the duty was applied in practice, not just referred to in passing.

So in a situation where someone has long-term health conditions (physical or mental) that affect their ability to cope with homelessness, the authority has to factor that in when deciding whether a finding of intentionality is proportionate. If they don’t, the decision can be unlawful.

@CBankie
you said in your post#1

I’m posting on behalf of my friend, who would like advice on their homelessness case.

but you appear to have all the answers anyway, so what exactly are you looking for?

@mickR It may come across that way because I’m helping my friend organise a lot of material, but they definitely don’t have all the answers. What they’re really looking for are insights from others with experience — whether that’s how councils handle reviews in practice, how Equality Act arguments are treated, or what tends to carry weight at appeal. Lived experience is something guidance notes can’t always provide.

My friend does have long-term physical and mental health conditions that bring the Equality Act into play. Their GP has provided letters confirming that street homelessness would put them at serious risk of harm.

That’s why the Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 EA 2010) is relevant. The council had a legal duty to have due regard to the impact of its decision on a disabled person. Case law such as Pieretti v Enfield [2010] EWCA Civ 1104 makes clear that the PSED applies to individual homelessness decisions — councils must properly investigate and demonstrate how disability factors were weighed, not just state that they were “noted.”

In this case, the concern is that while the council briefly referenced the Equality Act in the decision letter, it didn’t show any rigorous analysis of how my friend’s health conditions should have influenced whether intentional homelessness was the right finding, or whether suspension from the housing register was proportionate. That’s the gap we’re trying to test.

I should also say — I’m posting on my friend’s behalf because they find this difficult to manage alone. The aim isn’t to argue every point, but to make sure we understand how the law works in practice and whether anything has been overlooked. Supportive insights or shared experiences are really valued.