The tenant sought accomodation. The council offered him some but he refused it. The council wrote to explain the effect of a refusal. He now complained that since he could not speak English, the Council had not correctly informed him of the consequences.
Held: The section distinguished between the acts of informing and of notification. It must first inform the applicant, which implied some additional element of making sure the letter was understood, and if the accomodation was still refused, it must notify him, which was a lower standard. Nevertheless on the facts of the case, the council had fulfilled its duty.
Judges:
Lord Justice May, President, Lord Justice Wall and Lord Justice Moore-Bick
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Civ 1279, Times 04-Nov-2009, [2010] PTSR (CS) 6, [2010] PTSR CS6
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Tomlinson and Others v Birmingham City Council SC 17-Feb-2010
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.377548
