Ivan Beach v South Hams District Council

Ivan Beach v South Hams District Council

The respondent lawfully discharged its duty by offering temporary accommodation for the appellant alone, as the children were not reasonably expected to reside with him at the relevant time; the appellant's deliberate failure to occupy the accommodation rendered him intentionally homeless under s191(1).

Parties
Appellant: Ivan Beach; Respondent: South Hams District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Intentional Homelessness, Priority Need, Temporary Accommodation, Statutory Interpretation
Housing Law Administrative Law Intentional Homelessness Priority Need Temporary Accommodation Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivan Beach

Appellant

South Hams District Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a hotel room constitutes accommodation reasonable to continue to occupy under the Housing Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the respondent lawfully discharged its duty under s193(2) by offering temporary accommodation for the appellant alone
  3. 3 Whether the appellant became intentionally homeless under s191(1) by failing to occupy the accommodation provided

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent lawfully discharged its duty by offering temporary accommodation for the appellant alone, as the children were not reasonably expected to reside with him at the relevant time; the appellant's deliberate failure to occupy the accommodation rendered him intentionally homeless under s191(1).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No error of law found in the respondent's decision or the County Court judgment
  • The respondent's duty under s193(2) was lawfully discharged