The claimant had applied for emergency housing, saying that he had suffered a deep vein thrombosis, and was vulnerable under the 1996 Act. The authority said that its finding that the VT would not put him at additional risk if homeless, was one of fact against which no appeal lay. The authority now appealing said that it wa wrong for the district judge to say that the medical evidence could not be said to support the finding.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘the decision that Mr. A was not in priority need of accommodation under section 189(1)(c) of the Act was one which was properly open to Ms A on the evidence. She was duty bound to weigh all the relevant evidence. She did so. She had to apply the Pereira test. She did so. Her first reference to it was immaculate: the second was criticised by the Recorder, but was found by him not to be material. She did not leave anything relevant out of account, or include in her consideration any material which was irrelevant. She was entitled to take into account the views of Dr Keen and to give them the weight she did.’
Judges:
Arden, Wall, Wilson LJJ
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Civ 354
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council Ex parte Puhlhofer HL 2-Jan-1986
Not Homeless Even if Accomodation Inadequate
The applicants, a married couple, lived with a young child and later also a baby in one room of a guest house. They were given breakfast but had no cooking or washing facilities. They succeeded on a judicial review of the housing authority’s . .
Cited – Begum (Nipa) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council CA 1-Nov-1999
The fact that the accommodation found to be available to the applicant for housing was in Bangladesh did not make it unavailable in law. The subsections must be read separately. Accommodation could be available to the applicant even though she could . .
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 . .
Cited – Griffin v Westminster City Council CA 28-Jan-2004
The claimant sought emergency rehousing saying that he was a vulnerable person within section 189. The court at first instance had overturned the rejection of his claim by the authority.
Held: The test set out in the statute was to be followed . .
Cited – Shala and Another v Birmingham City Council CA 27-Jun-2007
The claimants succeeded in their applications for asylum, and then applied for housing assistance. They now appealed refusal of such assistance. The issue was how the authority had treated their medical evidence in the review process. Mrs Shala was . .
Cited – London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Deugi CA 7-Mar-2006
The court considered whether a successful appeal against a local authority’s decision on the need for emergency housing should lead to the case being remitted to them for a further review. May LJ defined the question to be: ‘whether there was any . .
Cited – Osmani v London Borough of Camden CA 16-Dec-2004
Auld LJ set out the test to be applied by an authority when deciding whether the applicant was vulnerable for the purposes of deciding whether to give priority housing assistance. The courts had recognised the difficult, involved nature of the . .
Cited – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
Cited – Aribisala v St James’ Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd ChD 14-Mar-2008
The claimant contracted to buy two apartments from the defendant. The contract purported to exclude section 49. . .
Cited – Khelassi v London Borough of Brent CA 7-Dec-2006
The court considered the use of medical expert evidence in applications for emergency housing. . .
Cited – Harper v Oxford City Council CA 2007
Application for leave to appeal against homelessness decision – refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.266799