R (Maloba) v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
“On the proper construction of s 175(3) of the Housing Act 1985, the phrase ‘accommodation which it would be reasonable .. to continue to occupy’ was to be read as ‘to occupy or continue to occupy’. Such an interpretation avoided the creation of a distinction between a person with unfit accommodation available to him who was living in it and one who was not. Furthermore, the matters to be considered in deciding whether it was reasonable to expect an applicant to occupy accommodation available to him were not limited to the size and structural quality of the accommodation.”
WLR Daily, 5th December 2007
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.