Moran v Manchester City Council
Court of Appeal
“Two women, who had been made homeless unintentionally when they fled to women’s reguges from domestic violence, became homeless intentionally when they were evicted from the refuges as a result of their own misconduct.”
The Times, 20th May 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“A women’s refuge was accommodation which, having regard to various factors, it could be reasonable for women to continue to occupy.”
WLR Daily, 17th April 2008
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.
Omar v Westminster City Council
Court of Appeal
“An officer reviewing a local authority decision that it had discharged its housing duty by offering suitable acccommodation had to examine the facts as they appeared at the date of that decision.”
The Times, 25th March 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
R (Aweys and others) v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWCA Civ 48; [2008] WLR (D) 36
“In the case of the homeless in priority need it was not lawful, for the purposes of the duty to secure accommodation pursuant to s193 (2) of the Housing Act 1996, for a local housing authority, pending permanent re-housing, to leave those found to be homeless but not on the streets within the very accommodation found to be unsuitable for accommodation.”
WLR Daily, 8th February 2008
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.
Regina (Maloba) v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
Court of Appeal
“In concluding that an applicant who had become a British citizen in 1997 was not homeless because there was accommodation for him in Uganda, the housing authority had adopted too restrictive an approach.”
The Times, 16th January 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
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
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.
Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council
Court of Appeal
“A shared residence order made by a family court in uncontested proceedings did not determine the question whether a parent in whose favour the order was made had a priority need for housing as a homeless person with dependent children who might reasonably be expected to reside with him.”
The Times, 19th November 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Unlawful housing reasonable
Harouki v Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council
Court of Appeal
“Where a tenant applied to be treated as homeless because where she lived with her family was statutorily overcrowded, and occupation of such accommodation was a summary offence under section 327 of the Housing Act 1985, the housing authority was entitled to conclude, having regard to local conditions, that it would not be unreasonable for the family to stay there.”
The Times, 12th November 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
R (RJM) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2007] EWCA Civ 614
“Social security regulations, which disentitled a person without accommodation from receiving disability premium, did not discriminate against homeless persons on a ground relating to status for the purpose of art 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.”
WLR Daily, 28th June 2007
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily sumamry is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2024