The claimant sought emergency housing saying that he had a priority need for housing. He had liver cirrhosis and alcoholism, depression and asthma. The authority denied his claim.
Held: When an officer considered an appeal against a refusal of emergency housing, he should allow the applicant to make further representations if he was considering refusing the review but on different grounds.
Lawrence Collins LJ said: ‘an important objective of reg. 8(2) is to ensure that, where the reviewing officer is minded to confirm a decision on different grounds, the applicant should be given an opportunity to make representations.’
Longmore LJ, Wilson LJ, Lawrence Collins LJ
[2009] BLGR 536, [2008] 2 WLR 1160, [2008] EWCA Civ 1443, Times 10-Mar-2009, [2009] HLR 29
Bailii
Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999 No 71) 8(2)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Mitu v London Borough of Camden CA 1-Nov-2011
The claimant had applied for housing under homelessness provisions saying that he was in priority need and was not homeless intentionally. The first decision had been that he was intentionally homeless and not in priority need. After review, it was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Administrative
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.278817
