Spencer v Taylor  EWCA Civ 1600
This case was flagged recently on the Arden Chambers eflash service. This flash gave some bare bones details and led to much debate on the internal NL email discussion list. However, we now have the vital transcript and so we can give a proper report.
S granted an Assured Shorthold Tenancy under the terms of the Housing Act 1988 to T on 6 February 2006, a Monday. It was for a fixed terms of 6 months with rent payable weekly. Thus the first day of each period was a Monday and the last day was a Sunday. At the end of the … Read the full post
In R(Alansi) v Newham LBC, Stuart-Smith J held that, although Ms Alansi had a legitimate expectation that she would remain a priority homeseeker on Newham’s housing register, Newham had not acted unreasonably and in abuse of its power by withdrawing its representation. It is a case which demonstrates (again) just how hard it is to shoehorn a genuine grievance into a successful JR challenge, doubly so in the context of a local authority allocation scheme.
Ms Alansi had decided to accept an offer of PRS accommodation made by Newham under s 193, Housing Act 1996, in circumstances in which Newham had clearly and unambiguously (as Stuart-Smith J found) represented … Read the full post
R (on the application of MK) v Barking and Dagenham London Borough Council  EWHC 3486 (Admin) [Judgment on Lexis, not on Bailii yet]
A judicial review raising the extent of a Council’s duties and powers under s.17 Children Act 1989 and s.1 Localism Act 2011 (the general power of competence) in providing housing for someone not otherwise eligible for housing assistance.
MK was from Nigeria. She was in the UK illegally. A current application for leave to remain had been refused and was under appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. (If MK left the UK, this appeal would fall.) MK’s age was unclear. Barking had assessed her date of … Read the full post
AT & Ors v London Borough Of Islington  EWCA Civ 1505
We are a bit late with this one, but while we are on the interrelation of duties to children and housing duties, this was an an application for permission to appeal a judicial review decision on the interrelation of s.17 Children Act 1989, s.11 Children Act 2004 and the Housing Act 1996 parts 6 and 7.
AT and her husband have two sons, aged 5 and 2, both of whom have disabilities. One son has serious autistic spectrum disorder and the other Down’s syndrome. They live in a one bedroom flat on the second floor of a block … Read the full post
Hurzat v Hounslow LBC (2013) CA (Civ Div) 21 November 2013 [Not on Bailii yet, Lawtel note]
What is the relationship between Housing Act 1996 Part VII and Children Act 2004? Does the duty under s.11 Children Act to safeguard and promote the welfare of children have a bearing on decisions on intentional homelessness under Housing Act 1996? While this case provides a partial answer, it was not, I think, a great case on the facts for testing the interplay of the Acts.
Ms H is married with 3 young children. She applied to Hounslow as homeless following eviction for rent arrears. Hounslow decided she was intentionally homeless as, although … Read the full post
One of a couple of cases on intentional homelessness and affordability of accommodation.
Noel & Anor v London Borough of Hillingdon (2103) CA (Civ Div) 21 November 2013 [Lawtel note, not on Bailii yet]
N had applied to Hillingdon as homeless, following eviction from an assured short hold tenancy. Hillingdon found him intentionally homeless and this was upheld on review and by the County Court on a s.204 appeal. Mr N sought permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Mr N had been living at the house of his partner’s mother. He had then taken an assured shorthold tenancy at a rent of some £1350 per month. His total … Read the full post
A quick note on a succesful bedroom tax First Tier Tribunal decision in Islington.
Unfortunately there is no statement of reasons (or at least yet) and the decision notice, which I have seen, says nothing more than the appeal being allowed. For at least part of the decision, the reasons could be rather crucial, as we will see. The Law Centre caseworker for the appellant has given me all the information she has, but without reasons, we can’t be sure. There are news reports here and here. (I have decided not to use the appellant’s name. I see no reason to do so).
The appellant was the tenant of … Read the full post