The applicant lived in a caravan. It disappeared without trace, and he claimed emergency housing under the section. Was housing required as a result of an emergency flood fire or disaster?
Held: There was in fact no explanation available for the loss, and it was not proper to require the applicant to provide one. Nevertheless, in this case, the applicant was already homeles by the time of the caravan being lost, and accordingly the appeal failed since his application failed under the earlier criteria.
Judges:
Lord Justice Simon Brown (Vice-President Of The Court Of Appeal Civil Division) Lord Justice Waller And Lord Justice Kay
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 895, B2/2003/0324, Times 11-Jul-2003, Gazette 04-Sep-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2241
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Bristol County Court Ex Parte Bradic CA 1-Sep-1995
An unlawful eviction did not of itself constitute an emergency giving the applicant ‘priority need’ for housing. The event that results in the homelessness of the person claiming a priority need must have the characteristics of being ‘an emergency’ . .
Cited – Noble v South Herefordshire District Council CA 1983
The argument (that the word ’emergency’ was used in a wider sense than emergencies confined to emergencies arising from disaster) had no force in this case because in the phrase ‘any emergency such as flood, fire or any other disaster’ the words ‘or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.184072