“When can a Local Authority refuse to accept an application as homeless? This was a judicial review of Birmingham City Council’s refusal to accept a homeless application by the Claimant, Ms May, ostensibly on the basis that there was no change in facts from her previous application(s).”
NearlyLegal, 7th July 2012
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
“Although the legislation did not lay down the criteria of special circumstances in relation to priority need for housing homeless persons, a separated parent’s reasonable expectation that his children, who were living with their other parent, would move to live with him did not impose an obligation on the local housing authority to consider the parent’s case as special circumstances case for priority needs. Where an applicant for housing was represented by solicitors the failure of the authority expressly to notify the solicitor so that they could make representations in connection with the review did not invalidate the decision of the review officer to uphold the authority’s decision rejecting an application for priority need housing.”
WLR Daily, 18th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Maswaku v Westminster City Council [2012] EWCA Civ 669; [2012] WLR (D) 153
“Section 193(5) of the Housing Act 1996 did not impose any statutory obligation on the local housing authority to spell out each and every possible consequence if an eligible homeless applicant refused temporary alternative accommodation offered which the authority considered to be suitable for him.”
WLR Daily, 18th May 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Bubb v Wandsworth London Borough Council: [2011] EWCA Civ 1285; [2011] WLR (D) 323
“A county court judge hearing an appeal on a point of law under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996, against a review of whether a local housing authority owed a duty to a homeless person under the 1996 Act, had no jurisdiction to find the relevant primary facts for himself. The judge’s function was to consider whether the reviewing officer’s decision should be quashed on judicial review grounds.”
WLR Daily, 9th November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Mitu v Camden London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1249; [2011] WLR (D) 310
“Where a local authority, having decided that an applicant was intentionally homeless and not in priority need, decided on review of the application that the applicant’s homelessness was not intentional, it had a duty by section 192(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to provide or arrange for the provision of advice and assistance, and a discretion by section 192(3) of the 1996 Act to provide accommodation. Failure to consider the exercise of that discretionary power, if it affected the fairness of the decision, was a procedural deficiency requiring the local authority to give the applicant notice of its intended decision and allow him to make further representations either orally or in writing.”
WLR Daily, 1st November 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Hugh Muir examines whether home owners need more protection from squatters – and what effect criminalisation will have on the homeless.”
The Guardian, 6th October 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Government has been urged not to criminalise squatting after a report found it would lead to an increase in some of the most vulnerable homeless people sleeping rough.”
The Independent, 4th October 2011
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Prisoners should carry out work while in jail as part of the process of tackling the growing ‘feral underclass’, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said today.”
The Independent, 4th October 2011
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“At least 100 families are thought to have been made homeless by arson and looting since Saturday with the government pledging sufficient funds to give financial assistance to others whose homes have been damaged.”
The Guardian, 11th August 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Options for dealing with squatters – impact assessment.”
Ministry of Justice, 13th July 2011
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
“The government’s own impact assessment of plans to criminalise squatting has acknowledged that it could boost homelessness and rough sleeping, and target those who are already suffering from mental health and addiction problems.”
The Guardian, 13th July 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Oxford City Council v Bull [2011] EWCA Civ 609; [2011] WLR (D) 169
“Where the father of children who resided with their mother, from whom he was separated, allowed them to share his one-room accommodation, he became homeless intentionally, within the meaning of section 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996, on being evicted from that accommodation.”
WLR Daily, 18th May 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Sharif v Camden London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 463; [2011] WLR (D) 148
“A local housing authority’s duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to secure that accommodation was available for occupation by a homeless applicant was not discharged by providing two self-contained flats with no shared communal living areas, one for occupation by the applicant and her sister and the other for occupation by her father, because such accommodation was not available for occupation by the applicant together with any other persons who normally resided with her as members of her family within the meaning of section 176 of the 1996 Act.”
WLR Daily, 20th April 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Makisi v Birmingham City Council; Yosief v Same; Nagi v Same [2011] EWCA Civ 355; [2011] WLR (D) 124
“An applicant for housing under the homelessness provisions who, on an review of a decision to refuse accommodation, had a right to make oral representations where there had been a deficiency or irregularity in the original decision, could insist on a face-to-face hearing with the reviewer at which he or his representative could make representations.”
WLR Daily, 31st March 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Children as young as 13 are being released from custody without a safe place to live, forcing them into a cycle of homelessness and reoffending, research has shown.”
The Guardian, 28th February 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council [2011] UKSC 3; [2011] WLR (D) 18
” ‘Domestic violence’ in section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 included physical violence, threatening or intimidating behaviour and any other form of abuse which, directly or indirectly, might give rise to the risk of harm.”
WLR Daily, 26th January 2011
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Pieretti v Enfield London Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1104; [2010] WLR (D) 248
“S 49A(1)(d) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 required a local authority, in carrying out its functions under Pt VII of the Housing Act 1996, to take due steps to take account of a disabled persons’ disabilities.”
WLR Daily, 13th October 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“An applicant for accommodation could establish a priority need under the Housing Act 1996 because a dependent child was residing with her, where the dependent child was an European Economic Area national from abroad, even though the child did not have a permanent right to reside but was subject to immigration control, but the housing authority’s duty was then the restricted duty provided for under s 193(7AA) of the 1996 Act as amended. Under either the amended or unamended provisions the duty would have been the full duty had the dependent child had a right of permanent residence in the United Kingdom. Moreover, a failure by the host member state to enforce the removal of the dependent child after three months did not graduate by waiver to her acquiring a permanent right to residence.”
WLR Daily, 28th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A local housing authority’s duty, under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996, to secure that accommodation be made available for an unintentionally homeless person who had a priority need did not give the homeless person a ‘civil right’ within the meaning of art 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms because the provision of appropriate accommodation was dependent upon the exercise of evaluative judgments by the local authority as to whether the statutory criteria had been satisfied and how the homeless person’s need ought to be met.”
WLR Daily, 23rd March 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024