Call for homeless right to view premises London Borough of Newham v Khatun & Others (2004) The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that council tenancies granted to the homeless are covered by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, but Joseph Fryer, a partner at solicitors Aina Khan Partnership, explains to Sarah Taylor that the judgment also overturns right to view properties earlier granted by the High Court... The background to London Borough of Newham v Khatun & Others is that Newham Council has a standard form of tenancy agreement it offers homeless persons whom they have a duty to house. Mrs Khatun was offered a tenancy in this form, but objected through her lawyers that it contained unfair terms. The council's policy is not to show prospective homeless tenants the accommodation prior to their signing a tenancy agreement. So what are the main effects of the Court of Appeal's judgment? Joseph Fryer, a partner at solicitors Aina Khan Partnership, explains: "Firstly,where a council has accepted the full duty to house a homeless person, and offers that person temporary accommodation under that duty, it need not allow the homeless person to view the premises offered before being required to accept or reject it. And secondly, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 apply to tenancies, including those granted by councils to the homeless under their statutory duties. This means that landlords, public or private sector, cannot include unfair terms in standard term tenancies. If they do, those terms are invalid and the council landlords cannot rely on them. The Office of Fair Trading will be entitled to investigate complaints against landlords, and negotiate changes in their standard terms." In light of the fact that the Court of Appeal has rejected the High Court decision that a homeless person has a right to view property before accepting or refusing accommodation, does s202 of the Housing Act 1996 (which gives an applicant the right to request a review of a decision of a housing authority as to the suitability of accommodation offered to him) provide adequate protection for homeless people in your view? Fryer replies: "I don't think so. The Court of Appeal's decision means a homeless person in bed and breakfast accommodation can be forced to accept a flat (which may be distinctly unsatisfactory), without viewing it, and they may have to live in it for a number of months while the Council undertakes a s202 review and possibly during a s204 appeal to the county court. In this case, Mrs Khatun, a Muslim woman, spent nearly three months in a flat above a pub, sharing a front door with its customers, who were racially abusing her over that period. In a second case, another client with poliomyelitis was allocated a flat with two internal steps, and suffered a bad fall after the Council had determined her s202 review, but before they had moved her out. And in a third case, an overweight client of 72 living with two other generations of his family asked for a s202 review in October as the staircase was narrow and dangerous and his granddaughter had fallen and broken her leg. In due course he also suffered a bad fall, and just before Christmas the Council found the flat unsuitable. More than four months after the s202 request the Council has still not been able to find anywhere else for him, as anywhere suitable would have to be adapted for the family's needs." He continues: "In the first two cases, and perhaps the third as well, if the clients had been allowed to view the premises they would probably have been able to persuade the Council not to insist on making them accept the flat, and they would not have had to go through the delays of a s202 review. Unsuitable accommodation may be hazardous, and people are being pushed into accepting hazardous accommodation they have not seen." So is there likely to be an appeal to the House of Lords? "I don't think Newham will appeal on the unfair contract terms point. We are considering an appeal on the right to view before accepting a tenancy, but would need leave of the House of Lords." Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, SI 1999/2083.*R (on the application of Khatun) v Newham London Borough Council; R (on the application of Zeb) v Newham London Borough Council; R (on the application of Iqbal) v Newham London Borough Council (CA). (15/03/04) Case annotations in other services: *R (on the application of Khatun) v Newham London Borough Council; R (on the application of Zeb) v Newham London Borough Council; R (on the application of Iqbal) v Newham London Borough Council (CA). Legislative annotations in other services: Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, SI 1999/2083.