The claimant complained that having applied for housing in the borough they had in fact housed him outside the borough.
Held: The authority had a duty to house the applicant so far it was reasonably practicable within its borders. The policy had been adopted after an acute shortage of affordable housing. That policy was not Wednesbury unreasonable. It was not applied to more than a small percentage of applicants, and secured a proper saving for the Borough.
Judges:
Elias J
Citations:
[2005] EWHC 1716 (Admin), Times 27-Sep-2005, [2006] BLGR 1, [2006] HLR 4, [2006] ACD 28, [2006] 1 FCR 58, [2006] 1 All ER 112
Links:
Statutes:
Housing Act 1996 208, Homelessness Act 2002 1(1) 1(3)
Citing:
Cited – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
Cited – Regina v Newham London Borough Council, ex parte Sacupima and others CA 1-Dec-2000
Where a local authority had to decide whether temporary housing was suitable for a family who had applied under the homelessness provisions, the location of the short-term housing was relevant. In this case, a London authority, placing a family in . .
Cited – Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council Ex parte Puhlhofer HL 2-Jan-1986
Not Homeless Even if Accomodation Inadequate
The applicants, a married couple, lived with a young child and later also a baby in one room of a guest house. They were given breakfast but had no cooking or washing facilities. They succeeded on a judicial review of the housing authority’s . .
Cited – Jordan v Norfolk County Council ChD 25-May-1994
An order to replace trees ‘as reasonably practical’ was to include cost considerations, and it could be varied where the costs exceeded those expected. The mandatory order was varied. When considering what was meant by ‘reasonably practical’ ‘. . . .
Cited – Regina v Lambeth London Borough Council ex parte Eckpo-Wedderman 1998
The court considered the matters to be taken into account by a local authority when setting its housing policy: ‘I do not believe that a local housing authority, considering (as it is right that it should) whether to meet a particular and perhaps . .
Cited – Mohamed v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council HL 1-Nov-2001
Mrs M came to England in 1994 living first in Ealing and then Hammersmith. Mr M came later and lived elsewhere in Hammersmith. Hammersmith gave them jointly temporary accommodation, first in a hotel and then in a flat. They then applied under . .
Cited – Yumsak v London Borough of Enfield Admn 2002
The court will not readily interfere with the approach of a housing authority to the question of suitability, although in an appropriate case it plainly will. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Nzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .
Cited – Nzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.229303