Comments on: Allocations: Risk v Need http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/09/allocations-risk-v-need/ Housing law news and comment Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:56:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: simply wonderedhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/09/allocations-risk-v-need/#comment-559 simply wondered Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:33:41 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3251#comment-559 but it ain't for the la to make any decision on whether he should be free to come and go as he chooses. that for me would constitute an interference with his art5 right. but it ain’t for the la to make any decision on whether he should be free to come and go as he chooses. that for me would constitute an interference with his art5 right.

]]> By: davehttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/09/allocations-risk-v-need/#comment-558 dave Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:53:38 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3251#comment-558 Points taken, both. But the council were assisting him with access/egress from the property with carers and made certain undertakings in that regard. The point was that, on the ground floor, he would be free to come and go as he chose and thus a risk. As Cranston J noted at [38], "It has undertaken to provide the community care services which meet the claimant's needs in his existing property, so as to mitigate the hardship for him of its housing decision. Putting aside the legal considerations, I would expect it to meet that undertaking." An interesting case, though. Points taken, both. But the council were assisting him with access/egress from the property with carers and made certain undertakings in that regard. The point was that, on the ground floor, he would be free to come and go as he chose and thus a risk. As Cranston J noted at [38], “It has undertaken to provide the community care services which meet the claimant’s needs in his existing property, so as to mitigate the hardship for him of its housing decision. Putting aside the legal considerations, I would expect it to meet that undertaking.” An interesting case, though.

]]> By: simply wonderedhttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/09/allocations-risk-v-need/#comment-557 simply wondered Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:13:13 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3251#comment-557 if the facts as related by kris are accurate (stairs / unable to navigate) then isn't the accommodation unsuitable? i would regard a decision made by a council that his having a flat that he can't actually get out of is justified by minimising the risk he poses to children as being so far out as to be wednesbury squared! LA's have yet to acquire the power of house arrest. if the facts as related by kris are accurate (stairs / unable to navigate) then isn’t the accommodation unsuitable? i would regard a decision made by a council that his having a flat that he can’t actually get out of is justified by minimising the risk he poses to children as being so far out as to be wednesbury squared! LA’s have yet to acquire the power of house arrest.

]]> By: krishttp://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2009/09/allocations-risk-v-need/#comment-556 kris Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:39:57 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/?p=3251#comment-556 This was an interesting case - which I don't suppose any judge wants to touch with a barge-pole. My understanding is the applicant is an elderly housebound man who cannot negotiate stairs without his carers' assistance. The argument was this left him effectively imprisoned in his own flat. hence the transfer request. His other point was any injunctions or orders had expired - thus raising the point about dangerousness. he says he's done his time - on the other hand, are we as a community willing to take the risk of him being rehoused and him taking the opportunity to re-offend? I think the judge probably made the best decision in the circumstances - but whether it was the correct decision in law may be another matter. This was an interesting case – which I don’t suppose any judge wants to touch with a barge-pole.

My understanding is the applicant is an elderly housebound man who cannot negotiate stairs without his carers’ assistance. The argument was this left him effectively imprisoned in his own flat. hence the transfer request.

His other point was any injunctions or orders had expired – thus raising the point about dangerousness. he says he’s done his time – on the other hand, are we as a community willing to take the risk of him being rehoused and him taking the opportunity to re-offend?

I think the judge probably made the best decision in the circumstances – but whether it was the correct decision in law may be another matter.

]]>