Mr Kanu, aged 48, had physical problems, including back pain, hepatitis B, hypertension and haemorrhoids, as well as psychotic symptoms and suicidal ideation. His wife assisted him in taking the necessary drugs, but stress would raise his hypertension to ‘quite dangerous levels’, requiring an increase in the dose of the relevant drugs. An order for possession had been made against Mr Kanu and he applied for housing. The Council now appealed against a decision quashing their review officer’s decision under section 202 of the 1996 Act to uphold its earlier decision that the Respondent was not in priority need for accommodation within the meaning of section 189(1) of the Act.
Held: The applicant’s particular disability was not so severe as to leave him vulnerable and in need of assistance.
Aikens, Kitchin, Underhill LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 1085, [2014] WLR(D) 344, [2014] PTSR 1197
Bailii, WLRD
Housing Act 1996 189(1) 202, Equality Act 2010 149
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Hotak and Others v London Borough of Southwark and Another SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked as to the duty of local housing authorities towards homeless people who claim to be ‘vulnerable’, and therefore to have ‘a priority need’ for the provision of housing accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Those . .
Cited – Hotak and Others v London Borough of Southwark and Another SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked as to the duty of local housing authorities towards homeless people who claim to be ‘vulnerable’, and therefore to have ‘a priority need’ for the provision of housing accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Those . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535400