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 moved into premises which she found she could not afford and lost. She said she had expected her rent to be paid.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The claimant had been found not to have been told that her rent would be paid, but had been told that if she made the move, she risked being considered intentionally homeless: ‘her conduct may be characterised as wilful ignorance or shutting her eyes to the obvious, thus failing the good faith test.’
Judges:
May LJ, Gage LJ, Hallett LJ
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 1427, [2007] HLR 18
Links:
Statutes:
Housing Act 1996, The Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) Order 1996 (SI 1996/No 3204).
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Crawley Borough Council v Bliss CA 22-Feb-2000
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 . .
Cited – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – Aw-Aden v Birmingham City Council CA 7-Dec-2005
When a council is considering whether an applicant for housing is a homeless person, the applicant’s appreciation of the prospects of future housing can be treated as ‘awareness of a relevant fact’ for the purposes of the sub-section, provided that . .
Cited – O’Connor and Another v Mayor and Burgesses of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea CA 30-Mar-2004
. .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council ex parte N’Dormadingar QBD 14-Oct-1997
The failure of the applicant to make proper preparations for a house move is a proper consideration when assessing intentional homelessness. . .
Cited – Regina v Westminster City Council Ex Parte Obeid QBD 16-Jul-1996
Loss of a house from ignorance of benefit rules was not deliberate homelessness. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 23 November 2022; Ref: scu.245820