The local authority said that the claimant, having been sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment for drugs offences, had made himself intentionally homeless within the section. While in prison, he was evicted from the flat for non-payment of rent. He had arranged with his sister that the rent should continue to be paid … Continue reading Stewart v London Borough of Lambeth: CA 26 Apr 2002
A family had been found to be voluntarily homeless. The family asked the authority to provide housing to the family under the 1989 Act from its duty to care for the children. Held: The 1989 Act did not change the law in the 1980 Act. The authority had a power to assist and Another child … Continue reading Regina (W) v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 3 May 2002
The applicant had applied for rehousing as a homeless person. She was offered interim accommodation but refused it. Her case was reviewed, and her reasons rejected. She claimed the procedure was unfair, in that the authority was looking at decisions on disputed facts, and reviewing its own decisions on those facts. It was not acting … Continue reading London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Runa Begum: CA 6 Mar 2002
Each tenant had become unintentionally homeless, and was granted a non-secure tenancy of accommodation under section 193. Complaints of nuisance were received from neighbours. Possession orders were obtained and now challenged under the Human Rights Act. The service of the original notice to quit, engaged the Human Rights Act, but the action taken was lawful … Continue reading Smart v Sheffield City Council: Central Sunderland Housing Company Limited v Wilson: CA 25 Jan 2002
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The court was asked as to the circumstances in which, for the purposes of sections 198(2) and 199 of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002) (‘the 1996 Act’), an applicant for housing assistance has a local connection with the . .
The applicant had been agreed to be homeless with priority need, and had been provided with an assured shorthold tenancy. Held: The Legislation now allowed broadly three classes of accomodation as suitable: (1) accommodation owned by the local authority; (2) accommodation in the hands of registered social landlords; and (3) private rented accommodation. The tenant … Continue reading Griffiths v St Helens Council: CA 7 Mar 2006
The claimant complained that having applied for housing in the borough they had in fact housed him outside the borough. Held: The authority had a duty to house the applicant so far it was reasonably practicable within its borders. The policy had been adopted after an acute shortage of affordable housing. That policy was not … Continue reading Calgin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Enfield: Admn 29 Jul 2005
In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the recovery of possession interfered with their right respect for their family … Continue reading Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others: HL 8 Mar 2006
The applicant applied for housing being a homeless single mother. The council found that she was intentionally homeless, and was required to leave the temporary accomodation provided. The judge considered that the phrase ‘reasonable opportunity of securing accommodation’ involved consideration by the local authority both of the applicant’s individual situation and that of the authority … Continue reading Conville v London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames: CA 8 Jun 2006
The appellant asked whether the statutory review of a housing authority’s decision on whether he was intentionally homeless was a determination of a civil right, and if so whether the review was of the appropriate standard. The claimant said that she had not received a letter informing her of the consequences of not accepting an … Continue reading Tomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council: SC 17 Feb 2010
An assured tenant sought to challenge a possession order made for rent arrears. He said that as a public body the landlord had a duty under human rights law to pursue all posssible alternate solutions before seeking possession. Held: The property was one taken over by the Association as former local authority housing stock and … Continue reading Weaver, Regina (on the Application of) v London and Quadrant Housing Trust: Admn 24 Jun 2008
The claimant appealed against an order confirming a review of the decision that the local authority owed no futher duty to her under section 193. She had rejected the house offered as unsuitable for medical reasons. Held: The tenant’s appeal succeeded. The offer being of a permanent home, ‘Unless bound by authority to reach a … Continue reading Ravichandran and Another v London Borough of Lewisham: CA 2 Jul 2010
The applicant, having moved here from Greece, applied for emergency housing. The Council received no reply to its requests for corroboration sent to Greece. Housing was refused, but the officer later suggested that the real reason was that the applicant had accommodation available in Greece. The court considered an affidavit on behalf of the decision-maker … Continue reading Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Ermakov: CA 14 Nov 1995
The applicant was joint tenant of a council property. She suffered domestic violence, and said she was advised by the local authority to surrender her tenancy on the basis that they would rehouse her. She did so. The authority refused to provide a new tenancy, but would not rescind the surrender, and denied giving the … Continue reading Lawer, Regina (on the Application of) v Restormel Borough Council: Admn 12 Oct 2007
The applicants sought housing as homeless people. After the refusal of their applications, they sought a review, and in due course a second review. That second review was conducted by the same officer who had conducted the first. The appellant asserted bias on the part of the head of the housing needs and resources of … Continue reading Feld, Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster v London Borough of Barnet, Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster: CA 18 Oct 2004
The tenant was no longer in occupation of the demised premises when he served a s27 notice. Held: A business tenancy ceases at end of the lease, if the premises are not actually occupied by the tenant despite any notices given. The occupation was required for a tenancy to continue under s24(1). S 27(2) was … Continue reading Esselte Ab and British Sugar Plc v Pearl Assurance Plc: CA 8 Nov 1996
The court examined ‘a short but important point on the inter-relationship between the provisions of Part III of the Children Act 1989, headed ‘Local Authority Support for Children and Families’, and the homelessness provisions of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, in particular sections 188 and 189, headed ‘Interim duty to accommodate”. Judges: Walll … Continue reading M, Regina (on the Application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham: CA 5 Jul 2006
The court considered the status of decisions to commence proceedings for possession by local authorities against tenants not protected under any statutory scheme. The tenants, on introductory tenancies and under the homelessness regime, argued that such decisions, being decisions affecting their Article 8 rights must be subject to challenge.The court considered the situation at Human … Continue reading Salford City Council v Mullen: CA 30 Mar 2010
Twins were conjoined (Siamese). Medically, both could not survive, and one was dependent upon the vital organs of the other. Doctors applied for permission to separate the twins which would be followed by the inevitable death of one of them. The parents, devout Roman Catholics, resisted. Held: The parents’ views were subject to the overriding … Continue reading In Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Medical Treatment); aka In re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation): CA 22 Sep 2000
EAT PART TIME WORKERSA police officer was found by the Tribunal to be significantly disadvantaged compared with his peers when carrying out examinations for promotion. Nonetheless, the Tribunal held that he was not disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 because that was not a normal day-to-day activity. In so far as … Continue reading Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: EAT 23 Jul 2007
The occupier had been granted a temporary licence by the authority under the homelessness provisions whilst it made its assessment. The assessment concluded that she had become homeless intentionally, and therefore terminated the licence and set out to evict her. She claimed that the authority had to get a court authority before so evicting her. … Continue reading Desnousse v London Borough of Newham and others: CA 17 May 2006
The applicant sought review of a decision by the local authority that he was intentionally homeless through a failure to pay his rent. He appealed a rejection of leave to appeal, and his appeal was with regard to the adequacy of the reasons given by the local authority for its decision. The claimant said he … Continue reading Eston Bernard v London Borough of Enfield: CA 4 Dec 2001
The defendants had had confiscation orders made against them. They had appealed on the basis that the orders were made more than six months after sentence. The prosecutor now appealed saying that the fact that the order were not timely did not invalidate them. Held: The appeal was allowed. The confiscation orders made by the … Continue reading Regina v Soneji and Bullen: HL 21 Jul 2005
The court considered an application for leave for a second appeal. Held: Pursuant to the Practice Direction, the court certified that though this was an application for leave, it could be cited: ‘the reference in CPR 52.13(2)(a) to ‘an important point of principle or practice’ is to an important point of principle or practice that … Continue reading Uphill v BRB (Residuary) Ltd: CA 3 Feb 2005
The applicant had sought emergency housing with her husband, but refused accomodation on a particuar estate for her safety. She had then been evicted form the temporary housing supplied on the application. After a series of temporary arrangements she applied again. Her application was accepted but the previous offer and refusal were said to remain … Continue reading Griffin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Southwark: Admn 29 Oct 2004
The Applicant was 65 years old, with a history of criminal offences including serious sexual assaults on children. On release from prison, he presented himself as homeless. After his imprisonment, he had realised that he would be unable to keep up the rent, and surrendered his tenancy. Held: A deliberate act which in fact lead … Continue reading Regina v London Borough of Hounslow ex parte R: Admn 19 Feb 1997
The appellants had applied for emergency housing as homeless persons, anticipating loss of their secure accomodation after falling into arrears. The Council reject their application, but a County Court quashed that decision. The Court of Appeal re-instated it, and the applicants now appealed again. The applicants had first sought advice from the council and had … Continue reading Din (Taj) v Wandsworth London Borough Council: HL 26 Nov 1981
The applicant was a Dutch national. She appealed for housing as a homeless person. The local authority, after review found her not to have a settled intention to stay in England. She appealed, to the County Court, and succeeded, and the Authority now appealed. Held: The County Court in reviewing such decisions under the section, … Continue reading London Borough of Newham v Adan: CA 14 Dec 2001
Mrs M came to England in 1994 living first in Ealing and then Hammersmith. Mr M came later and lived elsewhere in Hammersmith. Hammersmith gave them jointly temporary accommodation, first in a hotel and then in a flat. They then applied under section 193. The authority told Mrs M that they accepted a duty to … Continue reading Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council: HL 1 Nov 2001
The tenant was issued with a notice to quit for unpaid rent, within the first year, during an ‘introductory tenancy.’ She sought judicial review on the basis that the reduced security of tenure infringed her human rights. Held: Review was refused. The probationary regime was intended to protect other tenants and the local authority from … Continue reading McLellan v Bracknell Forest Borough Council; Reigate Borough Council v Benfield and Another: CA 16 Oct 2001
The parties were landlord and tenant. The landlords served a notice to increase the rent, but the tenant failed to serve a counter-notice within the relevant period. The landlord claimed the tenant was bound, and appealed a decision against them. Held: The appeal succeeded. The Mecca case was wrongly decided. The deeming provision in the … Continue reading Starmark Enterprises Ltd v CPL Distribution Ltd: CA 31 Jul 2001
The claimant had made more than one application for emergency housing. Held: ‘Clearly the mere assertion that an applicant’s claim ought to be considered cannot impose upon the local authority the onerous duty of making inquiries and considering the case afresh’ A fresh claim attracts all the substantive and procedural consequences of an initial claim … Continue reading Regina v Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Southwark ex parte Campisi: CA 9 Jul 1998
The defendant resisted accelerated possession proceedings brought for rent arrears under his assured shorthold tenancy, by a private housing association who was a successor to a public authority. Held: Once the human rights issue was raised, the judge had an obligation to deal with it. He did not have an obligation to examine housing policy … Continue reading Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd v Donoghue: CA 27 Apr 2001
The grant of temporary admission to the UK pending an decision on his asylum status, did not create a full ‘lawful presence’ in the UK. A person seeking to qualify for housing assistance had to be lawfully present within the UK, and temporary admission did not create a sufficient status by virtue of section 11. … Continue reading Murat Kaya v Haringey London Borough Council and Another: CA 14 Jun 2001
The court considered a request to review a decision on unintentional homelessness under Part III of the Housing Act 1985. Held: Public confidence in the decision making process is enhanced by knowledge that supportable reasons are given and that the giving of reasons is a self-disciplining exercise Judges: Louis Blom-Cooper QC Citations: (1995) 27 HLR … Continue reading Regina v London Borough of Islington, ex parte Hinds: QBD 1995
The claimants, a Polish national and an Austrian national, appealed against decisions of the Court of Appeal upholding decisions that they were not entitled to certain benefits, namely income support and housing assistance respectively, pursuant to the provisions of United Kingdom domestic law. Held: The claimants’ appeals failed. When she applied, Ms Mirga was not … Continue reading Mirga v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Samin v Westminster City Council: SC 27 Jan 2016
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she had been rehoused outside the Borough and that the Coucil had … Continue reading Nzolameso v City of Westminster: SC 2 Apr 2015
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult. Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They must show that their children are children in need within the meaning of section 17(10). … Continue reading Regina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A: HL 23 Oct 2003
The judicial review procedure which restricted the matters which it considered so as to exclude consideration of the allegation by the applicant that the tribunal whose decision he challenged had not been impartial, was insufficient to support the provision of a fair trial. This amounted to a lack of control over that tribunal by a … Continue reading Kingsley v The United Kingdom: ECHR 7 Nov 2000
Power to call in is administrative in nature The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights to a fair hearing before … Continue reading Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others: HL 9 May 2001
‘The question in this case is whether the appellant falls within the scope of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended, which applies, by virtue of subsection (1), where the local housing authority are satisfied that ‘an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need, and are not satisfied that … Continue reading Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest: SC 20 May 2015
The council’s tenant had unlawfully secured assignment of a secure tenancy to the defendant. The council sought possession. Held: A secure tenancy granted by an authority pursuant to a misrepresentation by the tenant is nonetheless valid. The statutory list of grounds for recovering possession was explicit and exhaustive. The present basis of claim was not … Continue reading Islington v Uckac and Another: CA 30 Mar 2006
Can a single room within a hotel comprise a separate dwelling within the 1988 Act and be subject to an assured tenancy? Held: A single room can be a dwelling. Each case must be interpreted in its own light as a question of fact, but respecting the intent of the legislation. Social changes now mean … Continue reading Uratemp Ventures Limited v Collins: HL 11 Oct 2001
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and home. Held: Article 8 does not, in terms, give a right to … Continue reading London Borough of Harrow v Qazi: HL 31 Jul 2003
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside. Held: Investors having once assigned their causes of action to the ICS, could not later … Continue reading Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society: HL 19 Jun 1997
The local authority submitted first that a person making a second application for emergency housing had to demonstrate a change of circumstance which might lead to a second application being successful and second that it was for the local authority to decide whether that test has to be satisfied. The applicant could not point to … Continue reading Regina v Harrow London Borough Council Ex Parte Fahia: HL 16 Sep 1998
The claimant wished to be rehoused by the defendant authority. He complained that their allocations policy was unlawful. Once an applicant was deemed in priority need, he entered a pool if such persons and houses were allocated (save in extreme cases) to the persons longest on that list. He said that the policy should have … Continue reading Ahmad, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Newham: HL 4 Mar 2009
In each case the prisoners challenged their transfer to cellular confinement or segregation within prison or YOI, saying that the transfers infringed their rights under Article 6, saying that domestic law, either in itself or in conjunction with recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, acknowledged that serving prisoners have a right to … Continue reading King, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: CA 27 Mar 2012
Not Homeless Even if Accomodation Inadequate The applicants, a married couple, lived with a young child and later also a baby in one room of a guest house. They were given breakfast but had no cooking or washing facilities. They succeeded on a judicial review of the housing authority’s decision that they had accommodation. They … Continue reading Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council Ex parte Puhlhofer: HL 2 Jan 1986
The claimants alleged that a connection between a member of the Restrictive Practices Court, who was to hear a complaint and another company, disclosed bias against them. She had not recused herself. Held: When asking whether material circumstances in a case might give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, the test was whether objectively … Continue reading In Re Medicaments and Related Classes of Goods (No 2); Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain and Proprietary Articles Trade Association: CA 21 Dec 2000
The defendant gypsies had moved their caravans onto land belonging to the respondents without planning permission. They appealed an order to leave saying that the order infringed their rights to respect for family life. Held: There had been conflicting decisions in the House of Lords (Quazi) and the ECHR (Connors). The Court of Appeal and … Continue reading Price and others v Leeds City Council: CA 16 Mar 2005
Court of Appeal must follow Own Decisions The claimant was injured and received compensation. He then sought to recover again, alleging breach of statutory duty by his employers. Held: The Court of Appeal was in general bound to follow its own previous decisions. The court considered the circumstances in which it could depart from a … Continue reading Young v The Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd: CA 28 Jul 1944
The claimant appealed refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decisions to sell arms to the Israeli state. He lived in Palestine and said that Israel had destroyed his farm, and that licences broke the criteria under the 2002 Act. He said that public authorities are obliged at common law to publish reasons for … Continue reading Hasan, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: CA 25 Nov 2008
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be unlawful and leave the authority unable to meet … Continue reading Porter and Weeks v Magill: HL 13 Dec 2001
The claimant was involved in matrimonial ancillary relief proceedings. His wife was advised by the defendants, her solicitors, to remove his private papers. The claimant now sought permission to appeal against a strike out of his claim against the solicitors for wrongful interference with property by ‘possessing, taking or intercepting the claimant’s correspondence and documents … Continue reading White v Withers Llp and Dearle: CA 27 Oct 2009
Homelessness Status Requires LA Action The House considered appeals challenging whether local authorities who gave unacceptable housing to the homeless had satisfied their obligations to them as homeless people. What was meant by the phrase ‘accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy’? In the Birmingham cases large families had been … Continue reading Birmingham City Council v Ali and Others; Moran v Manchester City Council: HL 1 Jul 2009
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an appeal to the County Court on a point of law. Held: The decision was … Continue reading Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening): HL 13 Feb 2003
The issue was whether an English court was able to award damages in Sterling only.
Held: The House distinguished clearly between the substance of the debtor’s obligations and the effect of English procedural law when a debt in a foreign . .
The court was asked as to the duty of local housing authorities towards homeless people who claim to be ‘vulnerable’, and therefore to have ‘a priority need’ for the provision of housing accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Those . .
A young offender was to be released subject to being tagged. He wished to apply for housing.
Held: The claimant should be considered homeless. He had ‘no accomodation available for his occupation’ under the Act. Prison was not a right to . .
