Regina (Mani) v Lambeth London Borough Council, Regina (Tasci) v Enfield London Borough Council, Regina (J) v Same: Admn 18 Apr 2002

The applicants were asylum seekers, but also had disabilities, and sought housing assistance from the local authorities. The authorities replied that they had no duty to provide housing because of the Immigration Act.
Held: The 1948 Act provided care where no other was available. The need for rehousing here arose in part from the applicant’s disabilities, and that was enough. The duty was not displaced because the need arose in large part from simple destitution for which the state provided other resources. Assistance in this context included the provision of housing, and in making the assessment the authority had under the 2000 regulations to ignore the other support given to asylum seekers.
Mr Justice Wilson
Times 08-May-2002, Gazette 23-May-2002, [2002] EWHC 735 (Admin), (2002) 5 CCLR 486, [2002] ACD 78
Bailii
National Assistance Act 1948 21, Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 115, Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 704) 6(3) 23(1) 23(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Wandsworth London Borough Council, Ex Parte O; Leicester City Council, Ex Parte Bhikha CA 7-Sep-2000
The applicants were immigrants awaiting determination of their applications for exceptional leave to remain, and who came to suffer from serious illness. Each applied for and was refused assistance from their local authority.
Held: The . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromRegina (on the Application of Mani) v London Borough of Lambeth CA 9-Jul-2003
Where a destitute and disabled asylum seeker had a clear need for care and attention, the local authority had a duty to provide it. The claimant was an asylum seeker, with impaired mobility and a history of mental halth difficulties. At first he was . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 April 2021; Ref: scu.170266