The applicant was an alcoholic and had in 1980 been hit by a motor vehicle and suffered a severe head injury. He sought judicial review of the respondent’s failure to house him.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘The question we have to consider is whether or not the applicant is vulnerable and secondly whether the vulnerability is as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical or other special reason. Dealing first with the meaning of ‘vulnerable’, vulnerable literally means ‘may be wounded’ or ‘susceptible of injury’. (See the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 6th edition (1976), p.1305.) In our opinion, however, vulnerable in the context of this legislation means less able to fend for oneself so that injury or detriment will result when a less vulnerable man will be able to cope without harmful effects.’ and ‘There can be no question here but that the applicant is vulnerable. The Judge accepted that there was a degree of vulnerability. Furthermore it is reasonably clear that the degree of vulnerability increased as a result of serious accident with severe brain injury in the early summer of 1980. Before that, although he had a drink problem, the applicant was able to cope, living in lodgings. Since the accident nobody will give him lodgings and all those who have considered his case take the view that he needs either ‘support’ or ‘help’ or ‘a degree of shelter’ or ‘sheltered accommodation . . . The first question which has to be considered is whether or not there is vulnerability. If there is vulnerability, then does it arise from those matters which are set out within section 2(1)(c)? It may not arise from any single one but it may arise from a combination of those causes.’
Judges:
Waller LJ
Citations:
[1983] QB 238, Times 25-May-1982, [1982] 3 WLR 661, [1982] 3 All ER 727
Statutes:
Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 2(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Reversed in part – Regina v Waveney District Council ex parte Bowers 25-May-1982
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision that he was not homeless under section 1 of the Act. For 15 months he had been using a night shelter in Lowestoft. It was an unheated dormitory in a derelict building. It was empty and closed . .
Cited by:
Cited – Griffin v Westminster City Council CA 28-Jan-2004
The claimant sought emergency rehousing saying that he was a vulnerable person within section 189. The court at first instance had overturned the rejection of his claim by the authority.
Held: The test set out in the statute was to be followed . .
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 . .
Cited – Regina (on the application of) Awua v Brent London Borough Council HL 6-Jul-1995
Tower Hamlets, having determined the applicant to be homeless, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. After she occupied temporary accomodation she was offered an alternative being told it was the council’s policy only to make one such . .
Cited – Hotak and Others v London Borough of Southwark and Another SC 13-May-2015
The court was asked as to the duty of local housing authorities towards homeless people who claim to be ‘vulnerable’, and therefore to have ‘a priority need’ for the provision of housing accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. Those . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.192636
