The applicant lived in a caravan. It disappeared without trace, and he claimed emergency housing under the section. Was housing required as a result of an emergency flood fire or disaster? Held: There was in fact no explanation available for the loss, and it was not proper to require the applicant to provide one. Nevertheless, … Continue reading Higgs v Brighton and Hove City Council: CA 30 Jun 2003
Citations: [2005] EWCA Civ 602 Links: Bailii Statutes: Housing Act 1996 189(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Housing Updated: 20 August 2022; Ref: scu.225051
The claimant had applied for emergency housing, saying that he had suffered a deep vein thrombosis, and was vulnerable under the 1996 Act. The authority said that its finding that the VT would not put him at additional risk if homeless, was one of fact against which no appeal lay. The authority now appealing said … Continue reading London Borough of Wandsworth v Allison: CA 15 Apr 2008
The court considered the duties of a local authority to provide housing where a a court made a shared residence order. Held: The making of an order for shared residence between a mother and father living apart was not itself determinative to give the father a right to be rehoused through the need to care … Continue reading Holmes-Moorhouse v London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames: CA 10 Oct 2007
(Outer House) Lord Glennie pointed out that anyone who is homeless is also vulnerable, and accordingly it follows that section 189(1)(c) must contemplate homeless people who would be more vulnerable than many others in the same position (especially given the words ‘or other special reason’ which show that vulnerability arising from many causes is covered). … Continue reading Morgan v Stirling Council: SCS 10 Oct 2006
The applicants appealed refusal of their applications for housing having priority housing need being vulnerable because of their mental illness. They said that the original decisions had been reviewed, and that on review deficiencies had been identified in the decisions, but they had not been given opportunity themselves to make representations about the decisions. Held: … Continue reading Hall v London Borough of Wandsworth: CA 17 Dec 2004
The claimant sought emergency rehousing saying that he was a vulnerable person within section 189. The court at first instance had overturned the rejection of his claim by the authority. Held: The test set out in the statute was to be followed strictly. It asked whether, if he was left homeless he would be less … Continue reading Griffin v Westminster City Council: CA 28 Jan 2004
The applicant and his seventeen year old wife became homeless. They claimed housing assistance on the ground that the wife was a dependant child. Held: The authority succeeded. Though persons aged between 16 and 18 in full time education could, under the rules, be treated as dependent children according to the circumstances, the priority under … Continue reading London Borough of Hackney v Ekinci: CA 24 May 2001
Appeals as to decisions refusing urgent need homelessness assessments. Judges: Lewison, Beatson, Sweeney LJJ Citations: [2017] EWCA Civ 1624 Links: Bailii Statutes: Housing Act 1996 189(1)(c) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Housing Updated: 31 March 2022; Ref: scu.597405
Mr Kanu, aged 48, had physical problems, including back pain, hepatitis B, hypertension and haemorrhoids, as well as psychotic symptoms and suicidal ideation. His wife assisted him in taking the necessary drugs, but stress would raise his hypertension to ‘quite dangerous levels’, requiring an increase in the dose of the relevant drugs. An order for … Continue reading Kanu v The London Borough of Southwark: CA 29 Jul 2014
When considering whether a person was vulnerable so as to be treated more favourably in applying for rehousing: ‘The Council should consider such application afresh applying the statutory criterion: The Ortiz test should not be used; the dictum of Simon Brown LJ in that case should no longer be considered good law. (The same applies … Continue reading Regina v London Borough of Camden ex parte Pereira: CA 20 May 1998
The provisions requiring local authorities to look to the welfare of children within their area was a general one, and was not enforceable to secure the interests of individual children. It was not the case that a ‘target’ duty crystallised into an enforceable one, once a child’s needs had been assessed. If that had been … Continue reading Regina (A) v Lambeth London Borough Council: CA 5 Nov 2001
Central London County Court – appeal by W under s. 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against the decision on review by the respondent local housing authority (‘Haringey’), upholding an earlier decision that he was not within a category of persons who are in ‘a priority need for accommodation’, as specified in s. 189(1) of … Continue reading W v London Borough of Haringey: Misc 17 Feb 2016
The court was asked whether, when assessing an applicant’s ‘priority need for accommodation’ under section 189(1)(c) Housing Act 1996 (that is, whether the applicant is ‘vulnerable’ by reason of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical . .
The court was asked whether the appellant has a priority need for homelessness accommodation on the basis that he is vulnerable within the meaning of section 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996. . .
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 . .
