Appeal against an order dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the review decision of the respondent local housing authority.
Underhill LJ discussed statistical evidence on a section 202 review in relation to an applicant who was said to be a suicide risk if he was made homeless: ‘[E]ven if it is right, as seems plausible enough even in the absence of statistics, that the incidence of suicide is higher among homeless people than in the remainder of the population, I am not sure how that is relevant to the question which the reviewing officer had to decide. It might show only that a disproportionate number of people with the kind of history or personality that renders them specially liable to attempt suicide tend to be made homeless. The fact that there might be disproportionately many such people in the homeless population would not in itself mean that they were any the less vulnerable within the meaning of section 189 (1)(c) – any more than it would if there were a disproportionately large number of homeless people suffering from severe mental illness. The question of who constitutes the ‘ordinary homeless person’ . . cannot be answered purely statistically.’
Gloster, Underhill, Floyd LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1273
Bailii
Housing Act 1996 202
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Hotak and Others v London Borough of Southwark and Another SC 13-May-2015
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537422