星空传媒

In November 2002 Mr Rogerson applied to the council as homeless and it put him in a hostel called Brecon Close. It was not a purpose-built hostel but a block of flats, each having bedrooms, living room, kitchen and bathroom. There was also a warden鈥檚 flat and the warden had a master key for the flats and bedrooms.

Residents were allocated bedrooms with their own locks but shared the flat鈥檚 facilities with other residents. The occupation agreement said they could be required to move from one flat or bedroom to another.

In February 2003 it was alleged that Rogerson had broken the residence conditions. After 10 days鈥� notice, he was evicted without a court order.

He said he had been entitled to four weeks鈥� notice and a court order and sued for illegal eviction. The judge dismissed his claim.

On appeal, the judge said Brecon Close met the definition of a hostel because it provided residential accommodation with facilities for food preparation 鈥渙therwise than in separate or self-contained accommodation鈥�.

The licence agreement鈥檚 sharing requirement prevented the accommodation from being 鈥渟eparate鈥�. Because the hostel was provided by the council, it was excluded from protection and the eviction had not been unlawful.

However, had it not been a council-provided hostel, the normal protection against eviction would have applied.

Although short-term interim accommodation for the homeless does not usually count as a 鈥渄welling鈥� for those purposes, that judicial exception was strictly limited in time 鈥� and that time had elapsed.