‘The Court of Appeal held that a room in a seaside hotel was both available for the appellant, and reasonable for him to continue to occupy, and therefore upheld the authority’s review decision that he was homeless intentionally for not staying there, even though his children could not go there. This was in circumstances where the authority had decided that he was in priority need because his children were reasonably expected to reside with him, and the authority were searching for permanent accommodation where his children could reside.’
4-5 Gray's Inn Square, 9th May 2025
Source: www.4-5.co.uk
