Split households

'Split household' means that the accommodation cannot also be occupied by any other person who normally resides with them as a member of their family or in circumstances in which the local authority consider it 'reasonable for that person to reside with him'. [1]

So for example, this could apply where a large family are living in two separate smaller dwellings in order to avoid overcrowding.

The definition of 'family members' includes spouses, civil partners, cohabitees (including a same-sex partner), children, stepchildren, foster-children, grandchildren, brothers/sisters, aunts/uncles, and nephews/nieces. [2] The Code also suggests that people who might be regarded as reasonably residing with the applicant might include dependant foster-children living with their foster-carers, and formal or informal carers including people residing with the family to help care for dependent children or other companions. [3] The Code also advises that households that are split up for no other reason than that they have nowhere to live together should be regarded as one household. [4]

A problem arises where people do not satisfy the 'normal residence' criterion because they are either not members of the family but are living with the applicant (eg housekeepers, companions or foster children) or have never lived together. In this case, the authority must consider whether it would be reasonable to expect them to reside together.

In one case, [5] the court held that where a single man applied for accommodation for himself and a carer with whom he had lived for several years, the test was not whether the applicant was so disabled that he needed a live-in carer, but rather whether it would be reasonable for the friend to live with him.

A common situation is where a young couple who are expecting a child have always lived with their respective parents. The authority should address the issue of whether it is reasonable to expect them to live together, and whether they are therefore homeless because they do not have accommodation available to both of them together. There is case law to support the argument that they should be treated as a homeless household. [6] It would follow that if they each left their parents' homes then neither could be declared intentionally homeless, since they did not leave accommodation that was available to them as a household. In another English case under the comparable legislation, it was accepted that a couple were homeless where they had lived apart in the homes of their respective parents throughout their marriage because neither set of parents was willing to accommodate them as a couple. [7]