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
Arden, Black, King LJJ  EWCA Civ 709 Bailii Housing Act 1996 204 England and Wales Housing Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.566850
Mathew Gullick, (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)  EWHC 3100 (Admin) Bailii Housing Act 1996 204 England and Wales Housing Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.656308
The claimant appealed against the dismissal of his claim that his accomodation was not suitable in the light of his health difficulties. Patten, Kitchin, Gloster LJJ  EWCA Civ 952 Bailii Housing Act 1996 204 England and Wales Housing Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551792
The appellant had sought housing assistance. She had been offered accomodation but refused it as unreasonable. The authority declined further assistance. She now appealed against the refusal of the county court judge to set aside the decision against her on review. Held: Her appeal failed. The task of the county court judge was to see … Continue reading Bubb v London Borough of Wandsworth: CA 9 Nov 2011
The Council said that it had discharged its duty to house the claimants after they had refused an offer of accommodation, and that decision had been reviewed. The claimant denied receiving a notice under the procedure. The court was asked whether the decision in Runa Begum was to be interpreted in the light of Tsfayo. … Continue reading Ali v Birmingham City Council: CA 7 Nov 2008
The court was asked whether, under its contract with the Lord Chancellor, a firm of solicitors, is entitled to receive civil legal aid funding for its work while acting for clients in appeals against homelessness decisions under section 204 of the 1996 Act. Silber J  EWHC 746 (QB) Bailii Housing Act 1996 204 England … Continue reading Bhatia Best Ltd v Lord Chancellor: QBD 17 Mar 2014
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
Renewed application for leave to appeal against homelessness decision. . .
The claimant had been found to be homeless, but had refused accommodation offered outside the borough saying that it would not allow medical treatment for his son. . .
Appeal by authority against decision reversing their finding of the claimant’s priority need as a homeless person. . .
The appellants refused the authority’s offer of accommodation under Part VI of the 1996 Act, saying it was not suitable. After the authority had informed them that if they did not accept the offer, the authority’s duty to house them would cease, . .
Appeal against dismissal of challenge to finding that intentionally homeless. . .
This appeal concerns the scope of the jurisdiction of the county court when hearing a statutory appeal from a decision under s. 204 of the Housing Act 1996, and the lawfulness in this case of a contracted-out review decision under s. 202 of that . .
Tucker J said of section 204(2A) ‘ . . the time limit fixed by Parliament under the Housing Act 1996 was draconian, as some might think. It was certainly short and it gave no discretion to the judge either of this court or the county court to extend . .
‘This case concerns the approach to be adopted by the court towards the assessment of a ‘good reason’ for delay in bringing an appeal under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) against an adverse review decision under the homelessness . .
The claimant had sought housing as a homeless person. The authority rejected his claim saying that he was intentionally homeless, having lost his previous accomodation having grown cannabis there breaching his tenancy. The authority appealed an . .
Application for leave to appeal . .
(Central London County Court) . .
Appeal against grant of adjournment of possession action whilst defendant abided by the terms of the order. . .
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 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 . .
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 . .
The claimant authority sought leave to appeal refusal of a possession order after the was said to have broken a term of his tenancy by allowing the sale of cannabis in the house. The judge had found a breach of natural justice when the authority had . .
The appellant sought to appeal a review of his application for housing. The appeal was lodged at court after close of business on the last day of the statutory time limit. The court decided it was delivered out of time.
Held: The Act required . .
Appeal from rejection of appeal from finding of intentional homelessness. . .
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 claimants had been brought here illegally to act as servants for the defendants. They were taken advantage of and abused. They made several claims, but now appealed against rejection of their claims for discrimination. The court was asked whether discrimination because of, or on grounds of, immigration status amounts to discrimination because of, or … Continue reading Taiwo and Another v Olaigbe and Others: SC 22 Jun 2016
The Claimant challenged the Defendant’s decisions to refuse to exercise its discretion under section 188(3) of the Housing Act to secure that accommodation is available to the Claimant pending the outcome of its review of her application for assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. John Bowers QC  EWHC 2515 (Admin) Bailii … Continue reading Barrett, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Council: Admn 28 Jul 2015
The Council appealed against a decision allowing the appeal of the respondent under the 1996 Act against its review decision which had upheld its original decision that Mr Balog was intentionally homeless within the meaning of s.191 of the 1996 Act. Sullivan, Kitchin, Briggs LJJ  EWCA Civ 1582 Bailii Housing Act 1996 191 204 … Continue reading Birmingham City Council v Balog: CA 12 Dec 2013
The company made selections for redundancy, but failed to give the appellants information about how the scoring system had resulted in the figures allocated. The calculations left their representative unable to challenge them on appeal. The procedure adopted did not follow the statutory rules, but the tribunal had found the dismissals to be fair. The … Continue reading Alexander and Hatherley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd: EAT 12 Apr 2006
The fact that the accommodation found to be available to the applicant for housing was in Bangladesh did not make it unavailable in law. The subsections must be read separately. Accommodation could be available to the applicant even though she could not afford to travel to it. The power of the County Court to hear … Continue reading Begum (Nipa) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council: CA 1 Nov 1999
The court was asked whether the 1977 Act required a local authorty to obtain a court order before taking possession of interim accommodation it provided to an apparently homeless person while it investigated whether it owed him or her a duty under Part VII of the 1996 Act, and (ii) whether a public authority, which … Continue reading ZH and CN, Regina (on The Applications of) v London Boroughs of Newham and Lewisham: SC 12 Nov 2014
Estoppel Cannot Oust Statutory Discretion The plaintiff had been refused planning permission for a factory. The refusals were followed by the issue of Enforcement Notices and Stop Notices. The plaintiff said that they had been given re-assurances upon which they had relied. Held: The appeal failed. The court tried to reconcile invocations of estoppel with … Continue reading Western Fish Products Ltd v Penwith District Council and Another: CA 22 May 1978
Each of the three applicamts having been found to have lied in order to obtain British Nationality, now appealed against a decision that they were not in fact Britsh citizens. . .
The applicant sought housing as a homeless person with her children. The authority found her in priority need, but intentionally homeless. Her appeal against the adverse review failed, and she appealed again. She had given up a council flat and had . .
Whether the County Court has jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction requiring a local authority to provide accommodation for a person who is proceeding with an appeal under s 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against a review decision made . .
This appeal raises two related points of law. First, where an applicant who is dissatisfied with a decision made pursuant to s. 184 of the Housing Act 1996 requests a review of that decision pursuant to s. 202 of the Act, what is the legal status of . .
The respondent had requested a review of his housing priority need. He had applied to the Authority under the homelessness provisions of the 1996 Act, the Council decided that he was not in priority need. The solicitors then acting for him requested . .
Renewed application for permission to appeal against an order dismissing an appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against the decision of a review officer to the effect that accommodation at Milton Keynes that had been offered to her . .
Tour guides were engaged to act ‘on a casual as required basis’. The guides later claimed to be employees and therefore entitled by statute to a written statement of their terms of employment. Their case was that an exchange of correspondence . .
The council argued that the defendant was not a tenant granted to him as a secure tenancy since he had not been granted the tenancy in accordance with its policies. An employee had manipulated the Council’s system to grant tenancies to bypass the . .
Challenge to rules requiring certain minimum levels of income (Minimum Income Requirement – MIR) for allowing entry for non-EEA spouse.
Held: The challenges udder the Human Rights Act to the Rules themselves failed. Nor did any separate issue . .
This appeal raises an issue as to when, if ever, it is permissible for a county court hearing an appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 on ‘any point of law’ arising from a review decision made by a local housing authority in a . .
The applicant was refused a grant of parental leave allowance in 1989. At that time parental leave allowance was available only to mothers. The applicant complained that this violated article 14 taken together with article 8.
Held: The . .
The claimant applied to be housed as a homeless person. The authority sought to refer him to a different authority under s198. As an asylum seeker, he had been given assistance both in Portsmouth and Southampton before coming to Ipswich. He said . .
The applicant lost her flat and had been refused emergency housing for herself and her child. She had a very troubled history with severe emotional trauma, and was disorganised. He application was refused on the ground of her having become . .
Reasons for dismissal of claim – whether a local housing authority can reconsider its determination of an applicant’s eligibility for assistance under Part VII of the 1996 Act after it has made a ‘local connection’ referral to another authority. . .
Appeal against a decision dismissing an appeal brought by the appellant under section 204 of the 1996 Act against an assessment made by the Council upon review under section 202 of the 1996 Act. The Council’s assessment in relation to establishing . .
The appellant challenged the decision that accomodation offered to her being temporary was lawful and fair. . .
Our law-index is a substantial selection from our database. Cases here are restricted in number by date and lack the additional facilities formerly available within lawindexpro. Please do enjoy this free version of the lawindex. Case law does not ‘belong’ to lawyers. Judgments are made up of words which can be read and understood (if … Continue reading law index