The claimant complained that the defendant authority had failed to provide her and her family with suitable accommodation pursuant to its duty under section 193. Breach of duty was conceded. The relief sought by the claimant included damages for breach of Article 8.
Held: ‘Absent special circumstances which interfere with private or family life, a homeless person cannot rely upon Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 in order to found a damages claim for failure to provide accommodation’. Although the defendant’s breach of duty had compelled the claimant and her family to live in ‘grossly overcrowded and unsatisfactory accommodation’ for a period of 29 weeks, this did not infringe Article 8.
Judges:
Jackson J
Citations:
[2002] EWHC 1262 Admin
Statutes:
Housing Act 1996 193, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark CA 16-Oct-2003
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the . .
Cited – Regina (Bernard and Another) v Enfield Borough Council Admn 25-Oct-2002
The claimants were husband and wife. They had six children. The wife was severely disabled and confined to a wheelchair. The defendant Council provided the family with a small house but in breach, as they ultimately accepted, of section 21(1) (a) of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Human Rights
Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.186968
