Good faith or unaware of relevant facts

'A person becomes homeless intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy. In addition, an act or omission in good faith on the part of a person, who was unaware of any relevant fact, shall not be treated as deliberate.' [1]

The Court of Appeal held that there was no requirement that any ignorance of a relevant fact must be reasonable, although wilful ignorance would be held to fail the good faith test. [2]

The English Courts suggest the following principles may apply where someone claims to be unaware of a material fact: [3]

• whether an applicant has enquired into the existence of the fact is relevant to her/his awareness of it

• the fact is a relevant one if the applicant would have taken it into account when giving up accommodation had s/he been aware of it

• a fact must be sufficiently clear and definite for its existence to be objectively established

• the fact of which the applicant is unaware must exist at the time of the deliberate act or omission, the issue does not concern future events which may or may not occur [4]

The English courts have held that there is a distinction between honest blundering and carelessness, or holding unreasonable beliefs, in which case someone can still be acting in good faith, [5] as opposed to dishonesty, such as misrepresenting one's income to get a higher mortgage, where there can be no question of the person acting in good faith. [6]

Homelessness caused because a tenant was unaware of the possibility of housing benefit being restricted should not result in intentional homelessness, where this belief amounts to more than mere 'aspiration'. [7] Also, a person who was invited to come from abroad to live with a relative, but who then found that the accommodation was inadequate, was not be found intentionally homeless as she was unaware of the inadequate size of the accommodation. [8]

If the authority believes the applicant is not acting in good faith, it is obliged to tell the applicant when s/he is being interviewed. [9] However, an unexpected inability to find employment or accommodation where the prospect of finding them was a matter of hope or aspiration, rather than well-founded expectation, has been found not to be a relevant fact. [10]

The Code of Guidance suggests that ‘Other factors relating to an applicant that an authority may wish to take into account are youth; inexperience; education; or health (including whether or not there is a history of substance abuse)’. [11]