Paper Example on Samira Ahmed: Unsuitable Housing & Homelessness

It is generally understood that homelessness may be as a result of any one of many factors. One of the two scenarios, when a person is considered to be homeless, is when the accommodation that is available to them is not reasonable for them to live in anymore. Further, one may be recognized as being homeless when they are staying with their parents on a temporary basis and when their home is in a deplorable condition. These conditions aptly describe Samira Ahmed's case.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Unsuitable housing is considered as a cause of homelessness. However, the local authority must acknowledge that it is no longer reasonable for an individual to continue inhabiting a property and using its knowledge of the housing conditions in the particular area, will determine if the affected person should proceed with their tenancy of the property. The destruction of the physical characteristics may render an accommodation unsuitable. Whereas the local authority is mandated to consider applications for homelessness, the affected person may need to fall under priority need to benefit. An intentionally homeless individual shall not be guaranteed more suitable accommodation.

The local authority makes a consideration on whether an individual is either homeless or is threatened with homelessness. If in its wisdom the authority determines that it is not reasonable for the individual to continue to live in the property, it may consider such an application. Additionally, whereas the local authority may find special reasons besides having a pregnant member in the household, having dependent children and vulnerability by a member of the family, it is not guaranteed that such vulnerability will be considered. However, in the case of Samira Ahmed, the fact that she has a mental illness which prevents her from having a stable relationship, she would qualify as a special case deserving of such special consideration.

It is noteworthy that an individual who exhibits the ability to cope is considered as having the capacity to find and keep accommodation for themselves. Consequently, special needs are considered only when the level of the vulnerability results in individual suffering more significant harm than an average person when homeless. Further, the local authority may not act on the grounds that the homeless situation is intentional. This could be because the individual who applies for homelessness got into such a case because of either doing or not doing something that was within the scope of their responsibilities. Intentional homelessness is also considered when an accommodation exists for an individual, and the local authority considers it prudent that an individual continues to live in the property.

A person is considered to have created an artificial case of homelessness when they willfully and persistently refuse to pay rent. Such a consideration extends to the disregard for sound advice provided by a qualified individual. In the case of Samira, the housing officer once advised her to ventilate the home, to keep it warm by turning on fires, and to treat surface mould with a fungicidal wash. However, there is the only record of her trying the fungicidal wash. Temporary arrangements for stay with friends or family may force the consideration of homeless status may be reviewed after years and may not, therefore, be an immediate reason for concern of homelessness. Even so, the passage of time alone is not considered a sufficient reason to compel the consideration of a homeless situation.

Before the application for homelessness is approved, the local authority will need to determine the circumstances leading to the homelessness. Further, it is recommended that the local authority works in collaboration with the individual. The local authority can terminate their relationship with an individual it such a person shows deliberate and undesirable refusal to cooperate with a necessary step. One does not have to agree to take such an action initially. Therefore, the local authority will not consider an application for homelessness if there is a history of interaction between them and the individual resulting in conditions that remained unmet. For the case of Samira Ahmed, this could apply, particularly considering that there is a history of interaction between her and the local authority with the local authority recommending various renovations which she was to undertake.

It is worth noting that noncooperation may attract dire consequences beyond the rejection of a homeless application. If such a situation were to arise, the individual's request would not be considered until it is deemed a priority case. However, this would require several steps to be considered. The lack of cooperation may also result in the reduction in the benefits received by the individual. When the local authority recommends that a necessary step be undertaken, it is prudent for the individual to cooperate accordingly so that a good rapport is maintained between them and the local authority.

According to the homelessness legislation, "actively refusing to engage with activity required to help you secure accommodation" is sufficient proof for one to be considered as being deliberately and unreasonably uncooperative, a situation that will automatically hinder the provision of decent accommodation. It is worth considering that housing shortage continues to be on the rise in the United Kingdom and that any recommendations for a personal initiative to improve the state of an existing property should be taken seriously. The local authority would be considering that such background information is available to the applicant. In the case of Samira, it could well be considered that if the recommended renovations were to be undertaken, the house would remain habitable.

Deliberate and unreasonable refusal to cooperate may result from the fact that an individual understands what is required of them to do but chooses not to. Consequently, the refusal to cooperate with the recommendations are regarded as being deliberate. It is crucial for the individual to keep in mind that neither an unmet health need nor a communication challenge can be attributed to a refusal to cooperate with the local authority. The authority is directed to issue a written warning to the individual in cases where there is no cooperation, especially when a necessary step is not followed. Additionally, considering the period within which a step is to be undertaken, the lack of compliance from the individual may be considered when making the final decision over the matter.

There is a more severe danger in Samira applying for homelessness. In the event that the local authority accepts to offer help, the relief duty which it owes any eligible homeless person, as well as a prevention duty that is reserved for persons that are threatened with homelessness, is to last for 56 days. What this means is that, even if the local authority were to help, such help would initially be restricted to only 56 days. A longer or shorter period may be considered for the help considering the situation. It is more likely that the local authority will choose to end its duty at the close of the provided period which is less than two months considering the rising number of homeless persons. Such a decision will be taken irrespective of the level of need of the individual at the time. Therefore, the individual could still be lacking accommodation.

The Research Narrative

To get a better understanding of the scenario involving Samira Ahmed and the Summertown council in which Samira had chosen to be considered as homeless due to an inhabitable property offered by the council, the analysis of legal provisions relating to such situations was necessary. Foremost, a review of the law of obligations that capture the role of local authorities in housing was done. Under this law, it was determined that local authorities owed certain obligations provided by law to persons that occupy or are likely to occupy properties provided by the local authorities. One of the primary areas covered by such duties is homelessness. As provided by Pt III of the Housing Act 1985, local authorities are under obligation to provide secure accommodation to the homeless. It is through this provision that Samira was able to get accommodation in 1995. This Act provided for the classification of homelessness based on the underlying causes.

The Act recognized as a priority need an individual with dependent children. At the time of her application as a homeless person, Samira had a young daughter, Mona, and was thus considered a priority need and benefited from a small 2-bedroom house, 5, Victoria Place, Summertown, a London suburb. Whereas the law provides that the local authority should offer accommodation to the homeless, it does not guarantee that such accommodation has to be provided. S.179 of the Act provides that persons who do not qualify as exceptional cases may only benefit from information and advice from the local authority. Based on such provisions, it should be appreciated that Samira merited the special needs conditions. However, this may not apply today considering that her children are grown.

Samira's is not an isolated case. A search on landlord obligation to ensure the proper condition of the property occupied by a tenant led to two cases, one between Lee and Leeds and another by Ratcliffe and others against Sand well. In both cases, the properties of the claimants suffered from dampness, condensation and mould growth, thereby impacting negatively on their health. Like in Samira's case, the problem was attributed to poor design and a lack of proper heating system, insulation, and ventilation. Additionally, similar to the agreement signed between Samira and the council, there were express provisions that the landlord maintains the excellent condition of the properties for the entire tenancy period. This provision is enshrined in section 11(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The clients made a formal request for the repair of their properties as per S.4 of the Defective Premises Act 1972. These two cases were dismissed on the grounds that the landlord was only responsible for fixing only areas that were of disrepair. This responsibility, they claimed, did not extend to resolving design flaws.

The second thing to consider for directions, in this case, is the role of a lease agreement. This is a contract in which the landlord, as the property owner, gives a tenant the right to occupy their property for a period of time as specified in the agreement. A lease agreement describes the property and all the accessories provided in it. Services offered by the landlord that include utility bills are duly captured in the agreement. Section 3(4) of the lease agreement between Samira and the council specify the rights of the tenant regarding her making improvements to the property. It provides that the tenant may make improvements, alterations, and additions to the property for as long as the council approves such improvements in advance. The agreement also provides the tenant with the right to perform repairs if such repair remains unattended to for a long time. Additionally, the agreement provides that the tenant can seek compensation for such maintenance.

If Samira's case is to be considered, then the provisions of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 are applicable. This Act stresses the fact that local authorities have no duty to secure accommodation for all homeless people. Samira ought to realize that the dynamics leading to her consideration as an eligible person for accommodation have changed. The improved Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 introduces the duty of homelessness prevention for persons who face homelessness. It spells ou...