Multiple or repeat applications

In practice, where an applicant already has an open application with one local authority they are likely to be asked to ‘close’ that application if they then decide to apply to another local authority. Clients should be advised on the relative merits (for example where one authority has already awarded a full duty) before making a decision to do this.

The duty owed by the local authority is to be performed, as the occasion requires. [1]

In cases where the applicant has previously been deemed intentionally homeless the Code of Guidance stresses 'the person should not be considered intentionally homeless for all time; nor should a fixed period of disqualification be applied'. [2] If a further application is made then it should be considered on its merits. [3]

A local authority cannot rely on having previously discharged its duty. It cannot refuse to accept a repeat application where there has been a 'factual' change of circumstances' and it has a duty to make inquiries as to whether this is the case. [4] If the client’s situation is identical to when they previously applied as homeless the local authority can rely on its previous decision after making inquiries to satisfy itself of the same.

If there has been a change in the client’s circumstances the local authority must accept a new homeless application and make inquiries where they have reason to believe that the applicant is homeless, and the change is not fanciful or trivial. [5] For example if an applicant makes a further application following a relationship breakdown which has changed household membership, this should be treated as a new application.

Once the application is accepted, the local authority must carry out inquiries into whether any duty is owed to the applicant.

A local authority cannot rely on a discharge of duty by another authority. It can consider what the first authority discovered in its investigations and decided, but it must make its own inquiries and reach its own decision. [6]

The Court of Session in Scotland has decided that a new homeless application must be taken and inquiries must be made where the applicant’s circumstances have changed, and those changes are not fanciful or trivial. [7]

The English Court of Appeal has set out criteria for how a local authority should decide whether it has to accept a repeat application: [8]

• the onus is on the applicant to identify the facts that differentiate a fresh application from her/his earlier application. The authority can reject the application if the facts brought to its attention are fanciful, trivial or not new

• the local authority should compare the applicant’s factual circumstances at the date of the fresh application with those at the date of its decision on the earlier application

• when the repeat application reveals new facts, which are neither trivial nor fanciful then the authority must treat the application as valid.

Repeat applications most commonly occur where the applicant was previously found to be intentionally homeless or had refused an offer of suitable accommodation.

Where an applicant has previously turned down a reasonable offer of accommodation the local authority can rely on its previous discharge of duty [9] unless there has been a change of circumstances. A subsequent change of circumstances can revive the duty of the authority to secure accommodation. For example, the birth of a second child was held to be a material change in circumstances of an applicant as it made the accommodation previously offered unsuitable. [10]

Case law provides further examples of where a local authority had to accept a repeat application. They include the following, where a local authority:

• failed by refusing a repeat application by a homeless person for accommodation and assistance without making inquiries to satisfy itself that the application was in exactly the same terms as the original. In this case the Court of Session in Scotland ruled that the City of Edinburgh Council had failed to perform its statutory duties under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 s.28. [11]

• found an applicant intentionally homeless whilst she was living in a guest house which it had provided as interim accommodation. The applicant remained in the guest house after the authority's duty had ended, and successfully applied for housing benefit. A year later she was evicted from the guest house. [12]

• discharged its duty after an applicant refused an offer of suitable accommodation. She and her child returned to her parent’s home from where she had made her application. Subsequently two of her brothers moved into the parental home, one of whom was using heroin at the property. Two years after her initial application she again applied as homeless. [13]

• found an applicant affected by mental health issues and depression not to be in priority need. S/he re-applied to the local authority providing new medical evidence as to the applicant's increased risk of suicide, which the authority failed to investigate on the (incorrect) basis that the new evidence did not disclose any new fact. [14] Whilst this case relates to Priority Need which is no longer assessed in Scotland, the principles in this case may be relevant in other case where there is new evidence.

• found an applicant and her husband intentionally homeless. The applicant reapplied two years later including six of her children in the application, following the departure of her husband and her three eldest children ceasing to be dependent on her. The court held that the facts that the new application was not made jointly with her husband, and that the number of people seeking assistance had changed, both constituted a relevant change of circumstances. [15]

• dismissed a fresh application on the basis that new medical evidence the applicant submitted did not introduce new facts and would not have changed the original decision on the applicant’s priority need. The applicant had been originally found not in priority need due to lack of any evidence of medical problems and the applicant’s own assertions that she was in good health. The decision was upheld on review on the same basis. The applicant subsequently engaged with mental health services and after seeking advice, submitted a second application with evidence from medical professionals. The authority refused to accept it on the basis that (1) there were no new facts and (2) the evidence would not have changed the previous decision (in relation to priority need.) The court held that the decision that the new evidence introduced 'no new facts' was irrational and confirmed that the correct test was 'whether the new facts were trivial or fanciful'. [16]