The applicant had been refused accomodation as homeless after disclosing the ownership of a family home in Uganda. He had lived and worked in the UK for 15 years. The authority did not accept that it had later been repossessed. The council now appealed against a finding to the contrary, saying that, per Osmani, to find accomodation unreasonable, an applicant had first to occupy it and then leave it.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. Sedley LJ had said in Osmani that no local authority could contemplate asking this of an applicant. Auld had not accepted the interpretation proposed and his view was to be preferred. An applicant was not to be required to return to unsuitable accomodation and to leave it before being treated as uunintentionally homeless. Nor was the council entitled only to look at the size and structural quality of the available accomonation. Other proper reasons might apply, as they did here.
As to costs the court declined to accept that there should be a general practice of ordering a stay on costs in favour of authorities on such appeals.
Judges:
Toulson, Carnwath LJJ, P
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 1281, [2008] 2 All ER 701, [2007] 2 Lloyds Rep 555, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 685, [2008] 1 WLR 2079, [2007] All ER (D) 32, 151 Sol Jo 1597, (2007) 151 SJLB 1597, [2008] BLGR 409, [2008] HLR 26, [2007] NPC 131
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Begum (Nipa) v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council CA 1-Nov-1999
The fact that the accommodation found to be available to the applicant for housing was in Bangladesh did not make it unavailable in law. The subsections must be read separately. Accommodation could be available to the applicant even though she could . .
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 – Osmani v London Borough of Camden CA 16-Dec-2004
Auld LJ set out the test to be applied by an authority when deciding whether the applicant was vulnerable for the purposes of deciding whether to give priority housing assistance. The courts had recognised the difficult, involved nature of the . .
Cited – Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council Ex parte Puhlhofer HL 2-Jan-1986
Not Homeless Even if Accomodation Inadequate
The applicants, a married couple, lived with a young child and later also a baby in one room of a guest house. They were given breakfast but had no cooking or washing facilities. They succeeded on a judicial review of the housing authority’s . .
Cited – Lockley v National Blood Transfusion Service CA 1992
There was an interlocutory dispute over the granting of an extension of time for service of the defence. The legally aided plaintiff challenged the costs orders made by the district registrar and the judge. Each ordered that the costs be the . .
Cited – Sonia Burkett, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham CA 15-Oct-2004
The appellant challenged an order for costs after dismissal of her application for judicial review of the respondent’s planning decision. The claimant had been granted legal aid at about the time of the bringing in of the new legal aid scheme. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Costs
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261777