Knight v Vale Royal Borough Council: CA 31 Jul 2003

The claimant challenged a decision of the authority that she had made herself intentionally homeless.She had gone to a refuge, then to stay with her mother. She had been found to be intentionally homeless. She then found a shorthold tenancy. When that was coming to an end the authority notified her that she remained intentionally homeless.
Held: The obtaining of the shorthold tenancy was capable of forming a break with whatever had happened beforehand, and that she had achieved a settled residence. It was not right to deduce from the fact that a maximum of six months only could be guaranteed that the accommodation was temporary, but such an occupation could not by law be a guarantee of having achieved a settled accommodation. It remained a question of fact and degree in the circumstances of each case.
Pill, Laws LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse
Times 04-Sep-2003, [2003] EWCA Civ 1258, Gazette 02-Oct-2003
Bailii
Hosuing Act 1996 184(6) 204
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Brent London Borough Council Ex Parte Awua HL 6-Jul-1995
The term ‘Accommodation’ in the Act was to be read to include short term lettings, and was not to be restricted to secure accommodation, and the loss of such accommodation can be counted as intentional homelessness. If a person who had been provided . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 February 2021; Ref: scu.186103