In 2011, Terryann Samuels, a mother of four in England, was faced with a difficult decision. She could ‘top up’ her public rent assistance with £150 of her basic needs assistance to pay her rent. Otherwise, she risked being labelled ‘intentionally homeless’ by the local council. She chose to take the latter course.
The council did indeed decide that she was ‘intentionally homeless’. This status relieved the council of most obligations to provide housing or other supports.
Ms Samuels appealed the decision. She went to the Legal Aid Agency. The Agency, which is supposed to help in assistance appeals, proved reluctant to take the case on.
But Ms Samuels persisted and others, who were willing to pursue the appeal joined in. After eight years, the case wound up before the Supreme Court.
The court found in favour of Ms Samuels, and noted that “benefit levels are not generally designed to provide a surplus”. In other words: people should not be paying their basic needs assistance money toward rent.
The Court ordered the council to review its decision and issued direction on how to conduct the the review. It also criticized the Legal Aid Agency. For more on this decision and local reaction, see in the Guardian Supreme Court Rules In Favour Of Single Mother Declared ‘Intentionally Homeless’
Using basic needs assistance to pay for rent is by no means uncommon. In Toronto, the maximum shelter benefit for a family of five is $815/month. To put that amount in perspective, the average rent for a one bedroom unit is $1,270. Anyone who has received social assistance in Toronto will tell you that they would be expected to make up any shortfall in shelter assistance from their basic needs assistance.
The difference is that they would not not be declared intentionally homeless. Would a social assistance client here have a case? Canada has just proclaimed housing as a human right…
