‘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
‘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 [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
‘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
‘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
‘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 [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
‘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
‘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
‘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: [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: [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
‘Anti-fracking protesters who have been camping by a drill site in Greater Manchester since late October have appeared in court to challenge attempts to evict them.’
The Guardian, 6th March 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘R (on the application of PK) v Harrow LBC (2014) QBD Admin 30 January 2014. The Claimants were the children of M. The family was street homeless and destitute following eviction. It appears that Harrow had decided there was no duty to accommodate M, as the family was referred to Social Services.’
NearlyLegal, 9th February 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘A rather odd second appeal from a s.204 appeal decision. At issue was whether the Council’s review officer should take into account “the homeless person’s state of knowledge about the Council’s rejection of the person’s reasons for stating he or she did not wish to live in a particular area”. In short, was an absence of a stated reason for a decision a potential issue on review.’
NearlyLegal, 2nd February 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘This judicial review permission hearing raises very significant issues for post Localism Act Council allocation policies. The central issue is the Council’s ability under the Act to set an allocation policy that includes ‘qualifying classes’ and excludes other classes.’
NearlyLegal, 28th January 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A s.202 review decision on affordability was at the centre of this second appeal, brought by Birmingham after a s.204 appeal decision went against them. The issue was to what extent the review decision should manifest attention to the statutory guidance (the July 2006 Guidance) on affordability.
NearlyLegal, 15th December 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘One of a couple of cases on intentional homelessness and affordability of accommodation.’
NearlyLegal, 24th November 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
‘Hurzat v Hounslow LBC (2013) CA (Civ Div) 21 November 2013. What is the relationship between Housing Act 1996 Part VII and Children Act 2004? Does the duty under s.11 Children Act to safeguard and promote the welfare of children have a bearing on decisions on intentional homelessness under Housing Act 1996? While this case provides a partial answer, it was not, I think, a great case on the facts for testing the interplay of the Acts.’
NearlyLegal, 24th November 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
“Poorsalehy v Wandsworth LBC (2013) QBD 07/11/2013. A cautionary tale, albeit one that was rather hard on Mr Poorsalehy. Mr P had applied to Wandsworth as homeless. His application was rejected by s.184 decision and the s.202 upheld the decision.”
NearlyLegal, 13th November 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
© Inner Temple Library 2024