A family of asylum seekers with two disabled children would be destitute without ‘adequate’ accommodation. What was such accommodation?
Held: The authority was under an absolute duty to house such a family. In satisfying such duty, it was adequate to place them immediately in temporary accommodation which would be adequate in the short term, pending the finding of properly suitable accommodation for the longer term. A balancing exercise had to be made. The adequacy of the temporary accommodation was not to be tested as to its adequacy for non-disabled children, but rather for the disabilities of these particular children.
Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Waller
 EWCA Civ 1473, Times 31-Oct-2003
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte M; Regina v Similar Ex Parte P etc QBD 8-Oct-1996
Destitute asylum seekers who were not entitled to welfare benefits could be in need of care and attention within the meaning of section 21 of the 1948 Act although they were no longer entitled to housing assistance or other social security benefits . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of Ouji) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2002
The court was concerned to interpret s122(4) of the 1999 Act relating to ‘essential living needs’. Basic support and basic essential needs by reference to non-disabled asylum seekers would be provided by the Secretary of State under the 1999 Act, . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .
Appeal from – A, Regina (on the Application of) v National Asylum Support Service and Another CA 23-Oct-2003
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits, Immigration, Housing
Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.187086