The applicant was a twenty four year old woman with a history of drug addiction and alcoholism. There was in fact suitable hostel accommodation available which had been offered to the applicant at the relevant time and it was hard to see why she needed the remedy of judicial review. She sought leave to appeal against rejection of her claim for judicial review of the authority’s decision not to treat her as vulnerable in her application for housing.
Held: Summarising the application: ‘The essence of her case is that once she established that she had a particular need for suitable accommodation and would suffer more than most if she failed to acquire it, then that of itself was sufficient to establish that she was vulnerable within the meaning of the legislation so as to give her a priority need.’ Approving Di Domenico: ‘In my judgment that approach is plainly right. In order to satisfy the test of vulnerability, as explained in the decision in ex parte Bowers , an applicant must in my judgment surmount two hurdles. First, he (or she) must show that to some material extent he or she is less able to obtain suitable accommodation than the ordinary person and secondly, that if he fails to obtain it, then he will suffer more than most. It is in my judgment the first of those hurdles which the applicant so conspicuously fails to surmount in the present case. The position is strikingly different from that in ex parte Bowers itself where, as the judgment recorded: ‘since the accident nobody will give him lodging …’. Here, for the reasons already indicated, there is no factual basis upon which the authority could conclude, let alone were bound to conclude, that this applicant would suffer peculiar difficulty in obtaining suitable accommodation.’
Judges:
Simon Brown LJ
Citations:
[1994] 27 HLR 364
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – ex parte Di Dominico 1989
The applicant was an epileptic who required careful medical supervision, but the local authority did not regard her as vulnerable for housing purposes.
Held: Review was declined. The matter was one for the authority exercising its discretion. . .
Cited by:
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 . .
Doubted – Regina v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Ex Parte Kihara; Similar CA 25-Jun-1996
Four asylum seekers had been deprived of benefits, and left destitute. They had sought housing assistance from the authority, claiming that the complete absence of resources left to them was an ‘other special reason’ leaving them vulnerable within . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.200293
