The applicant for housing was said to have suffered ‘a major and irreversible handicap’ as a result of a childhood injury but who also was in the habit of drinking six or seven pints of beer a day.
Held: The court accepted the submission ‘that the effect of that gloss upon the section is in practice to extend the meaning given to the word ‘vulnerable’ by Waller LJ as if it reads ‘less able to fend for oneself when homeless or in finding and keeping accommodation’.’
Judges:
Webster J
Citations:
[1988] 20 HLR 142
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – ex parte Sangeramano 1985
When consideriung whether an applicant for housing was vulnerable, ‘The vulnerability to be considered is vulnerability loosely in housing terms or in the context of housing.’ . .
Cited – ex parte Banbury 1987
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Camden ex parte Pereira CA 20-May-1998
When considering whether a person was vulnerable so as to be treated more favourably in applying for rehousing: ‘The Council should consider such application afresh applying the statutory criterion: The Ortiz test should not be used; the dictum of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.200290
