Where a local authority had to decide whether temporary housing was suitable for a family who had applied under the homelessness provisions, the location of the short-term housing was relevant. In this case, a London authority, placing a family in accommodation in Great Yarmouth, failed in its statutory duty, because the result of that placement would be to interrupt the education and medical care of the children of the family. The date when a former shorthold tenant became homeless, was the date of execution of the warrant for possession, not the date on which possession was ordered to be given. Latham LJ said that the provision was for the protection of other housing authorities as much as applicants: ‘there is a clear and sensible purpose to be served by the section, namely to ensure so far as possible that authorities do not simply decant homeless persons into other areas for which other authorities are responsible. There are significant consequences on a host authority, for example, by way of social service provision, which are obviously detrimental to the host authority and as to which Parliament could properly consider that they require protection.’
Judges:
Latham LJ
Citations:
Times 01-Dec-2000, (2001) 33 HLR 18
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Sacupima and Others, Ex Parte Newham London Borough Council QBD 26-Nov-1999
A local authority decide to provide temporary accommodation for homeless applicants outside its area in assorted seaside towns, pending a final decision on their cases. This general policy was unlawful, since the authority had failed to consider . .
Cited by:
Cited – Calgin, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Enfield Admn 29-Jul-2005
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 . .
Cited – Nzolameso v City of Westminster CA 22-Oct-2014
The authority accepted that it owed a duty to house the appellant, and that she was unable to afford the rents payable on housing within the district after reductions in housing benefits. She was offered but refused, housing im Milton Keynes. . .
Cited – Nzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Landlord and Tenant
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.88570
