A local authority refused the applicants application for emergency housing as a homeless person. On the review of that decision the authority concluded that she did have priority need, but then decided that the application should be refused because it found she was intentionally homeless. The decision was a public law decision, but this did not mean that a decision once made could not necessarily be revisited. The new grounds could not be ignored, and the factual conclusions could not be challenged. An appeal to the county court raised the question of whether the whole circumstances justified a relief in public law, and a new ground for refusal arising upon such a revisiting of the decision could only be ignored on public law grounds.
Judges:
Buxton, Chadwick LJJ
Citations:
Gazette 09-Mar-2000, Times 28-Mar-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 50, (2000) 32 HLR 636
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Griffiths v St Helens Council CA 7-Mar-2006
The applicant had been agreed to be homeless with priority need, and had been provided with an assured shorthold tenancy.
Held: The Legislation now allowed broadly three classes of accomodation as suitable: (1) accommodation owned by the local . .
Cited – Slater v London Borough of Lewisham CA 12-Apr-2006
The applicant was heavily pregnant when she was offered a first floor one bedroomed flat. She rejected it.
Held: When a housing authority reviewed its decision on the applicant’s decision not to accept the accommodation offered, that review . .
Cited – F v Birmingham City Council CA 2-Nov-2006
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147083
