Regina v London Borough of Tower Hamlets, ex parte Nadia Saber: QBD 1991

It is not uncommon, after a decision has been reached that an applicant for housing under Part III of the Act became intentionally homeless, for a request to be made to reconsider the decision in the light of additional material or argument. Such a request is not the equivalent of a reapplication and does not cast on the housing authority the duties imposed when an application under Part III is made. It is otherwise if there has meanwhile been a material change of circumstances. The housing authority has, however, a discretion to accede to the request. A decision not to reconsider the original decision is clearly reviewable on ordinary Wednesbury principles. No more stringent criteria can apply. It may well therefore be that a challenge to a decision not to reconsider will infrequently succeed. Each case will of course fall to be considered on its own facts.

McCullough J
(1991) 24 HLR 611
Housing Act 1986
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedC v London Borough of Lewisham CA 4-Jul-2003
The applicant lost her flat and had been refused emergency housing for herself and her child. She had a very troubled history with severe emotional trauma, and was disorganised. He application was refused on the ground of her having become . .
CitedRegina v Lord Mayor and Citizens of City of Westminster ex parte Ellioua CA 2-Jul-1998
The applicant sought to be rehoused. On review it was decided that she was intentionally homeless. She asked the authority to review that decision (a re-review). The authority said it had no power so to do. She had a right to appeal on a point of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.184316