R (on the application of ZH and CN) (Appellants) v London Borough of Newham and London Borough of Lewisham (Respondents) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 12th November 2014
Category: homelessness
Errors, damn errors, and statistics: Ajilore v Hackney LBC – NearlyLegal
‘With the Supreme Court set to look at priority need this December, Ajilore v Hackney [2014] EWCA Civ 1273 may prove to be a brief footnote in the evolution of the bloated Pereira test. But, at least for the next four weeks, it tells us something about the construction of the “ordinary homeless person” against which, post Johnson v Solihull [2013] EWCA Civ 752, applicants for homeless assistance are assessed.’
NearlyLegal, 16th November 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
R (Jakimaviciute) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council – WLR Daily
‘The power of a local housing authority under section 160ZA(7) of the Housing Act 1996 to set the qualification criteria for registration on a housing allocation scheme under that Act was subject to the authority’s duty under section 166A(3) of the 1996 Act to secure that reasonable preference was given to specified classes of people, including those who were owed a housing duty under section 193(2) of that Act.’
WLR Daily, 6th November 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Court of Appeal holds as unlawful part of allocation scheme adopted by council – Local Government Lawyer
‘Part of an allocation scheme adopted by a London council was unlawful, the Court of Appeal has ruled. In Jakimaviciute, R (On the Application Of) v Hammersmith And Fulham London Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 1438 the claimant challenged the legality of Hammersmith & Fulham’s scheme, which was adopted with effect from April 2013.’
Local Government Lawyer, 11th November 2014
Source: www.localgovernment lawyer.co.uk
Single mother-of-five made homeless by benefits cap turns to Supreme Court over Westminster Council’s attempts at ‘social cleansing’ – The Independent
‘A single mother-of-five who was made homeless after resisting Westminster Council’s attempt to move the family 50 miles from the capital is applying to the Supreme Court to review her case.’
The Independent, 29th October 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
The Long and Winding Road – NearlyLegal
‘The facts in Nzolameso v Westminster CC are pretty unremarkable, but the effects of the Court of Appeal’s judgement are likely to reverberate through every new homelessness application, especially in the London area.’
NearlyLegal, 26th October 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Nzolameso v Westminster City Council – WLR Daily
Nzolameso v Westminster City Council [2014] EWCA Civ 1383; [2014] WLR (D) 437
‘For the purposes of section 208 of the Housing Act 1996, when deciding whether it was “reasonably practicable” to accommodate a particular homeless person within its own district, bearing in mind that the accommodation might be of no more than a temporary nature, a local housing authority was entitled to have regard to all the factors that had a bearing on its ability to provide accommodation to that person, including the demands made on its resources, whether of a financial or administrative nature.’
WLR Daily, 22nd October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
How could 16-year-old Christina be killed on her way to school? – Daily Telegraph
‘As a report declares the fatal stabbing of schoolgirl Christina Edkins as ‘preventable’, her family speak out about the serious failings that led to the unprovoked attack.’
Daily Telegraph, 21st September 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Christina Edkins inquiry finds missed opportunities to prevent killing – The Guardian
‘A string of agencies and professionals missed opportunities to prevent the death of schoolgirl Christina Edkins, who was fatally stabbed on a bus by a homeless man with serious mental health issues, an investigation has concluded.’
The Guardian, 15th September 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Supreme Court agrees to hear key case on intentional homelessness – Local Government Lawyer
‘The Supreme Court has given an appellant permission to appeal a Court of Appeal ruling over the relevant time for a council to consider whether her homelessness was intentional.’
Local Government Lawyer, 28th August 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Kanu v Southwark London Borough Council – WLR Daily
Kanu v Southwark London Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 1085; [2014] WLR (D) 344
‘Where an applicant with a disability sought housing assistance as homeless, section 149(1) of the Equality Act 2010 did not require a housing authority to do any more than was required by the Housing Act 1996. The public sector equality duty in section 149 of the 2010 Act could not extend to requiring a housing authority to secure accommodation for a disabled person in circumstances where his disability did not render him vulnerable.’
WLR Daily, 29th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Trouble out west – NearlyLegal
‘In O’Brien v Bristol CC [2014] EWHC 2423 (Admin) [heard at the RCJ instead of in the Bristol admin court? Not on Bailii yet but we have seen a transcript], a range of issues arose out of the council’s decision to seek and obtain a possession order of an unauthorised encampment below the M5 at Avonmouth. The real aim of this judicial review, though, was not the possession order, but the council’s decision not to allow the O’Brien’s and their four caravans to return to the temporary transit site, which had available pitches. The O’Briens had stayed at that temporary site for the allowable period (13 weeks) and had been entitled to overstay on the ground of exceptional circumstances for a period. They then moved off and ended up at the M5 site. The O’Briens had also made a homelessness application and been offered interim bricks and mortar accommodation. The council’s officer had considered whether to allow the O’Briens back on to the transit site but decided against it for what would have been an indefinite period and which would have set a precedent for allowing extended stays in breach of planning controls. The O’Briens’ were unsuccessful on the merits although Burnett J did give permission to bring the judicial review’
NearlyLegal, 19th July 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Bad reviews and a future of bunk beds – NearlyLegal
‘This second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a s.204 Housing Act 1996 appeal raises three important questions. Unfortunately, the answers to them are rather brief and rather negative. The issues are i) whether a s.202 review of a s.184 decision can come to a finding which is substantially worse for the applicant that the original s.184 decision; ii) whether a review officer should conduct a hazard assessment (Housing Act 2004) when considering whether it is reasonable for an applicant to occupy their accommodation; and iii) how far should a review officer look to the future when considering whether the applicant is homeless.’
NearlyLegal, 30th June 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Homeless review officer can substitute less favourable decision: Court of Appeal – Local Government Lawyer
‘A local authority’s review officer was entitled to substitute a less favourable decision than the original decision in relation to a homeless applicant because circumstances had changed, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 27th June 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
Haile v Waltham Forest London Borough Council – WLR Daily
Haile v Waltham Forest London Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 792; [2014] WLR (D) 257
‘The question of whether a person applying to a local authority for housing accommodation was intentionally homeless within the meaning of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996, with the result that the local authority was under no duty to provide such accommodation to her under that section, was to be determined by reference to whether the person’s homelessness was intentional on the date on which she became homeless and not on the date of the local authority’s decision.’
WLR Daily, 13th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
What’s the Din?* – NearlyLegal
‘In Haile v Waltham Forest LBC [2014] EWCA Civ 792, the question for the Court of Appeal was the relevant date for determining whether an applicant is intentionally homeless. On the facts, this was a significant question: Ms Haile had left her room in a hostel on 25th October 2011 to go to stay with a friend. Only one person was entitled to occupy the room. She said that she left the room because of unpleasant smells in the hostel. At the time she left the room, she was pregnant and she gave birth to the beautifully named Delina on 15th February 2012. Now, clearly, as of Delina’s birth, the room would not have been reasonable for Ms Haile to continue to occupy because more than one person would be occupying it in breach of the tenancy agreement. However, the council found her intentionally homeless because they did not accept that, as of 25th October 2011, the smells into the room made it not reasonable to continue to occupy.’
NearlyLegal, 16th June 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Spoiling the Broth – NearlyLegal
‘Blake and others v LB Waltham Forest [2014] EWHC 1027 (Admin) is a judicial review challenge to the local authority’s decision to terminate a licence held by Christian Kitchen (the 3rd Claimant) to operate its soup kitchen out of the Mission Grove Car Park, Walthamstow, London, E17.’
NearlyLegal, 13th April 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Not adding up – NearlyLegal
‘As the number of people becoming homeless from private sector accommodation continues to rise, and as private sector accommodation is used for discharge of duty and temporary accommodation by Councils, the issue of affordability becomes more and more important. Both intentional homeless decisions and suitability decisions can rest on affordability.’
NearlyLegal, 7th April 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Bhatia Best Ltd v Lord Chancellor – WLR Daily
Bhatia Best Ltd v Lord Chancellor: [2014] EWHC 746 (QB); [2014] WLR (D) 142
‘In an appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 the county court was not “required by an enactment to make a decision applying the principles that are applied by the court on an application for judicial review” for the purposes of paragraph 19(10) of Schedule 1, Part 1 to the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 with the result that the claimant was not entitled to receive civil legal aid funding for such an appeal.’
WLR Daily, 17th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Mohamoud v Birmingham City Council – WLR Daily
Mohamoud v Birmingham City Council: [2014] EWCA Civ 227; [2014] WLR (D) 119
‘The principle that a person conducting a review of a local housing authority’s decision as to what (if any) duty to provide accommodation it owed under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 to an applicant could look at new matters to determine whether there was a “deficiency” in the decision for the purposes of regulation 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 was not confined to points which the applicant could not have taken at the outset.’
WLR Daily, 7th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
