VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J three years of prior knowledge of the Occupiers‘ circumstances, led the Court to find that to a great extent the City had itself to blame for its unpreparedness to deal with the Occupiers‘ plight.66 [72] In this Court counsel for the City criticised the Supreme Court of Appeal‘s findings as factually and legally wrong. The City submits that it is not obliged to go beyond its available budgeted resources to secure housing for homeless people. To do so would amount to incurring unauthorised expenditure. Resources not budgeted for are not available. [73] The Occupiers put the City‘s budgetary projections in its Integrated Development Plan before the High Court. The City objected to the projections being used. It pointed out that not all projections are accurate. A budget surplus was predicted, but the City says this projection was incorrect and that it is now in a budget deficit. Projections are an unreliable source of information, because they are simply estimates that may prove to be inaccurate, the City submits. However, it has not provided documentation to substantiate its claims of a deficit. The Occupiers‘ calls for it to do so went unanswered.67 66 Above n 3 at paras 49, 50 and 52. 67 During oral argument counsel for the City was asked from the bench how much time the City would require if ordered to provide the Occupiers with temporary accommodation. Counsel undertook to file a response in writing. After two written requests for more time, the City responded in a letter dated 25 August 2011. It stated that it cannot accommodate the Occupiers in any building or vacant land owned by the City and that it cannot divert any funds, because this would adversely impact other housing projects. At best, it could apply to the province for funding in terms of Chapter 12 of the National Housing Code to consider the application and allocate funding in the next budget cycle, commencing on 1 July 2012. It appears that further correspondence was exchanged between Blue Moonlight, the Occupiers and the City. Not all of this correspondence was sent to this Court. There is no need to go into the details of this exchange, however, because it does not take the matter any further. The matter must in any event be adjudicated on the evidence as it was at the date of the hearing. 34