The claimant had applied for housing under homelessness provisions saying that he was in priority need and was not homeless intentionally. The first decision had been that he was intentionally homeless and not in priority need. After review, it was agreed that he was not intentionally homeless. The applicant said that this should now entitle him to assistance by way of advice and also that the Council now had a discretion to assist, and should have given a ‘minded to find’ notice. The Council said that its duties had not changed.
Judges:
Rix, Sullivan, Lewison LJJ
Citations:
[2011] EWCA civ 1249
Links:
Statutes:
Housing Act 1996 203, Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hall v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 17-Dec-2004
The applicants appealed refusal of their applications for housing having priority housing need being vulnerable because of their mental illness. They said that the original decisions had been reviewed, and that on review deficiencies had been . .
Cited – Banks v Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames CA 17-Dec-2008
The claimant sought emergency housing saying that he had a priority need for housing. He had liver cirrhosis and alcoholism, depression and asthma. The authority denied his claim.
Held: When an officer considered an appeal against a refusal of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.448071