A mother and child from Holland were homeless in London. The mother was not entitled to be rehoused as a homeless person, nor to housing benefit, nor to income support, but sought the right to be housed with her child. The authority felt the best plan was to return the child to Holland. The duty under the Act to care for the child contained only a permissive power to care for the family. The obligation under s20 was to provide accommodation only. The decision to provide assistance to return the child could not be returned by a refusal of the mother into a duty to provide accommodation for both.
Judges:
Ward LJ
Citations:
Times 05-Jun-2001, Gazette 14-Jun-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 540, (2001) 4 CCLR 128
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appealed to – Regina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Children
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.85967