A once heavily pregnant and homeless woman has won a landmark case against Waltham Forest council changing the way all authorities can use the term ‘intentionally homeless’.

A ruling made by the Supreme Court yesterday stated that a pregnant woman who left a homeless hostel of her own will – did not make herself homeless.

The case will now set legal precedent for all challenging council’s interpretation of the term.

In June 2010 Ms Saba Haile was housed by the council in an ‘unpleasant hostel’ in Lea Bridge Road, Leyton.

“Grateful” to have a roof over her head after being homeless she made no complaints despite sharing one toilet with 15 others.

In May 2011 when she became pregnant Saba was made uncomfortable by the ‘oppressive atmosphere’ and sick with the smells and worried about anti-social behaviour.

Her morning sickness got worse and she feared for her child’s health.

In late October 2011, Ms Haile could cope no more and left the hostel.

Then she tried to make a homeless application while sleeping on couches for the night.

In late November 2011, the council decided that as Ms Haile had left the hostel voluntarily, she had made herself intentionally homeless.

Although they did recognise that when the child was born she would have been unsuitable for the hostel.

Hackney Community Law Centre helped Ms Haile to lodge an application requesting an official review of the council's decision.

 

East London and West Essex Guardian Series:

Saba Haile won her case in the Supreme Court against Waltham Forest council yesterday

 

Kerry Bretherton of Tanfield Chambers represented Ms Haile in October 2013 but the appeal was dismissed.

HCLC then applied for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which was granted, and the case was heard by the Lord Justices Jackson, Fulford and Clarke in June 2014. They too dismissed Ms Haile’s appeal.

HCLC then decided to lodge an appeal at the Supreme Court which was accepted and heard on January 29.

A panel of five Supreme Court judges included the President Lord Neuberger and the Deputy President Lady Hale.

After reserving their judgment following submissions on the January 29 2015, their Lordships allowed the appeal on the 20th of May 2015.

Giving the lead judgment, Lord Reed concluded that even though Ms Haile had voluntarily left the hostel in October 2011, LBWF had given no consideration as to whether her homelessness might actually have been caused by her certain eviction – once her baby was born – from a hostel that only permitted single people without children.

As Lord Reed stated at paragraph 67 of the judgment: “The birth of the baby meant that the appellant would be homeless, at the time when her case was considered, whether or not she had left the hostel when and for the reasons she did.”

Their Lordships therefore held that Ms Haile had not made herself intentionally homeless.

Prior to the case of Haile v the London Borough of Waltham Forest (‘Haile’) the leading case on intentional homelessness was Din v Wandsworth London Borough Council [1983] 1 AC 657 (‘Din’).

While not overruling the case of ‘Din’ the case marks a ‘significant departure’ from the way the law on intentional homelessness has been defined for the last 20 years.

Commenting on her victory, Saba Haile said: “I am so emotional. I could almost faint.

“I can’t express how I’m feeling. I’m overjoyed. It’s been 4 years. I felt like I didn’t have my rights. I was living in terrible living conditions.

“Hackney Community Law Centre have done an amazing job. When we were appealing to the Supreme Court, I told Tayyabah to forget it. I was exhausted but Tayyabah said we had to keep going and that we couldn’t give up.

“I would like to thank Tayyabah Ahmed (solicitor) and everyone at HCLC for winning my case.

“HCLC have supported me for the whole 3 years from start to finish.

“Now I can plan a real future for me and my daughter.”

An HCLC spokeswoman said: "Up until Easter this year HCLC have been providing a pro bono housing and homelessness service in Waltham Forest with weekly advice sessions in Lea Bridge Library, however due to lack of funding and any positive support form LBWF had to cease delivering the service."

"HCLC is very concerned that residents of the borough will find themselves homeless or facing housing problems in the future will no longer be able to obtain independent housing advice as there will be no service to provide it."