Westminster City Council v Clarke [1992] 2 AC 288

Facts

• Westminster City Council managed a hostel providing temporary accommodation under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.
• Mr. Clarke, a homeless person, resided in this council-managed hostel.
• Mr. Clarke repeatedly violated hostel rules and engaged in disruptive behavior.
• Westminster City Council sought to recover Mr. Clarke’s hostel room, arguing the facility fell within Schedule 1, paragraph 2 of the 1977 Act, thus exempting the council from providing alternative accommodation.
• The case reached the House of Lords, which examined the hostel’s day-to-day operations and Mr. Clarke’s conduct.

Issues

1. Whether the hostel qualified for the exception under Schedule 1, paragraph 2 of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, allowing the council to reclaim possession without providing alternative housing.
2. What criteria determine when such exceptions apply to hostels or similar facilities.
3. How councils should balance their obligations toward homeless individuals with maintaining order and proper operation within temporary accommodation.

Decision

• The House of Lords determined that the hostel in question met the statutory definition under Schedule 1, paragraph 2, qualifying for the exception.
• The Lords held that the exception allows councils to regain possession where justified, particularly in cases of disruptive or non-compliant behavior.
• The decision clarified the exception does not apply to all hostels universally; rather, it depends on the specific circumstances, including supervision intensity, enforcement of rules, and the impact of the resident’s behavior on others.
• The court emphasized that councils must lawfully apply clear rules and consider the function and management of housing arrangements in each case.

Legal Principles

• The statutory exception in Schedule 1, paragraph 2 of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 permits councils to reclaim hostel rooms without providing alternative accommodation under certain conditions.
• The term “hostel” is to be interpreted by reference to its operational purpose and the manner of its day-to-day management, not merely its formal designation.
• Balancing the rights of homeless individuals to shelter with communal safety, order, and the rights of other residents is fundamental.
• Legal exceptions should support practical housing administration without undermining essential protections for homeless persons, requiring case-by-case evaluation.

Conclusion

Westminster City Council v Clarke established that councils may rely on statutory exceptions to repossess hostel rooms without offering alternative housing when justified by the facility’s nature and the resident’s conduct, requiring a fact-sensitive, balanced approach under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.