Conditions for Anonymity Orders The claimant sought judicial review of the Defendant’s failure to provide suitable accommodation under its duty under section 193(2) of the 1996 Act. The Defendant admitted breach of its statutory duty because the accommodation that it was providing was not suitable. The parties now disputed the relief: she contended that a … Continue reading Imam, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Croydon: Admn 26 Mar 2021
Homelessness Status Requires LA Action The House considered appeals challenging whether local authorities who gave unacceptable housing to the homeless had satisfied their obligations to them as homeless people. What was meant by the phrase ‘accommodation which it would be reasonable for him to continue to occupy’? In the Birmingham cases large families had been … Continue reading Birmingham City Council v Ali and Others; Moran v Manchester City Council: HL 1 Jul 2009
Applications for accommodation under homelessness provisions . .
The Council’s power unders section 160ZA(7) allowing it to set the criteria for qualifying to be allocated housing did not displace its duties under section 166A(3) to give priority to the identified classes of housing applicants. That included those to whom a duty was owed y virtue of section 193(2). Richards, Tomlinson, Bean LJJ [2015] … Continue reading Jakimaviciute, Regina (on The Application of) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council: CA 6 Nov 2014
Use of the private rented sector by local housing authorities in causing their duty under s. 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to cease. [2021] EWCA Civ 1688 Bailii England and Wales Housing Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.669790
The applicant sought housing as a homeless person. Held: Moses LJ said: ‘The statutory questions are clear; was the action or omission in question deliberate? The answer to that question cannot differ [according to] whether the local authority takes into account the duty under section 11 of the Children’s [sic] Act or not.’ Moses, Beatson, … Continue reading Huzrat v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 21 Nov 2013
‘The question in this case is whether the appellant falls within the scope of section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 as amended, which applies, by virtue of subsection (1), where the local housing authority are satisfied that ‘an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need, and are not satisfied that … Continue reading Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest: SC 20 May 2015
The authority was required to provide housing to the minor applicant, but she was too young to hold a legal estate. An equitable lease had been created, and she now appealed against an order for possession having broken the terms of the agreement, saying that the authority was in practice trustee for the tenant, and … Continue reading Alexander-David v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham: CA 1 Apr 2009
Failure to Provide Signers was Discriminatory The claimant challenged the failure of the respondent to provide sign language interpreters to accompany public service broadcasts during the Covid pandemic. The parties agreed that the steps taken for later broadcasts had satisfied the requirements, but disagreed as to the need for continued review, the defendant saying that … Continue reading Rowley, Regina (on The Application of) v Minister for The Cabinet Office: Admn 28 Jul 2021
The claimant appealed against an order confirming a review of the decision that the local authority owed no futher duty to her under section 193. She had rejected the house offered as unsuitable for medical reasons. Held: The tenant’s appeal succeeded. The offer being of a permanent home, ‘Unless bound by authority to reach a … Continue reading Ravichandran and Another v London Borough of Lewisham: CA 2 Jul 2010
This is a continuation of the list of significant recent cases on our front page. As a most recent case pushes its way to the top, the last on teh front page falls into here. Newest significant cases.
Application for judicial review in which the claimant alleged that the defendant housing authority is in breach of its duty, under section 193(2) Housing Act 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’), to secure that suitable accommodation is available for him to . .
Appeal from an order in the County Court dismissing the appeal of the Appellant from a review decision of Birmingham City Council, pursuant to sections 202 and 203 of the Act, that the Respondent had discharged its duty to secure accommodation for . .
The applicant had been agreed to be homeless with priority need, and had been provided with an assured shorthold tenancy.
Held: The Legislation now allowed broadly three classes of accomodation as suitable: (1) accommodation owned by the local . .
The claimant applied to be housed as a homeless person. The authority sought to refer him to a different authority under s198. As an asylum seeker, he had been given assistance both in Portsmouth and Southampton before coming to Ipswich. He said . .
