Archive for the 'Homeless' Category

Part VII and Procedure

By SJM on 20/05/2012. 0 Comments

Two very recent Court of Appeal judgements have looked at the extent of a Local Authority’s obligations under Reg 6(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999: Maswaku v Westminster CC and El Goure v RB Kensington & Chelsea.

In brief, the Regulation provides that once a request for a s.202 review has been made, the Authority is obliged to notify the applicant of their right to make further representations on review, either personally or by somebody on their behalf.

In both El Goure and Maswaku, the Authorities were criticised for failing to notify the Appellants or their solicitors once the requests had been … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Homeless and Housing law - All.

Outside the Boxall

By NL on 15/05/2012. 0 Comments

This is an important case on costs on settled Judicial Reviews. Following on Bahta & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 [Our report] and Lord Jackson’s view on JR costs, the Court of Appeal in M v London Borough of Croydon [2012] EWCA Civ 595 has given general guidance for awarding costs. The principles should also apply to the equally troublesome area of costs in settled s.204 Housing Act 1996 Homeless appeals.

The actual judicial review that gave rise to this hearing was an age assessment case which was conceded by the Local Authority … Read the full post

Posted in Community care, FLW case note, Homeless and Housing law - All. Tags: , .

Stick or Twist

By J on 18/04/2012. 1 Comment

R (MD)(Afghanistan) v Secretary of State [2012] EWCA Civ 194 is an immigration case but merits wider attention because of what it has to say about the interplay between renewing a judicial review claim and appeals.

MD was an asylum seeker. The Secretary of State rejected his application, as did the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and the High Court. Some 10 days before he was due to be deported, his solicitors submitted a considerable amount of fresh material and sought to bring a new claim for asylum. The Secretary of State refused to accept the new claim and JR proceedings were issued (on the day set for his deportation).

Sales … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Homeless and Housing law - All. Tags: , .

Doomed, Doomed I tell you.

By NL on 09/04/2012. 2 Comments

As an illustration of how complex housing law has become, and how difficult for a litigant in person, comes Sheppard v London Borough of Richmond-Upon-Thames [2012] EWCA Civ 302.

This was a failed permission for second appeal to the Court of Appeal, following a failed s.204 appeal to the County Court. Ms Sheppard acted in person. She had applied as homeless to LB Richmond following her eviction from a private tenancy. A month later Richmond found her intentionally homeless on the basis that her eviction was due to persistent refusal to allow gas safety checks.

After a failed review, Ms S appealed to the County Court. Her stated grounds were:… Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Homeless and Housing law - All.

Costs on settled appeals

By NL on 02/04/2012. 0 Comments

A quick note on a useful case on costs where an appeal has been settled. Harripaul v London Borough of Lewisham [2012] EWCA Civ 266 was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a failed S.204 appeal to the County Court on a homeless matter.

The appeal was given permission, and Rimer LJ

expressed the view that the appellant had a real prospect of showing that the reviewing officer’s decision was materially deficient and that the judge’s upholding of it reflected unjustified benevolence. I regarded the appeal as having merit and I also considered that it would give this court the opportunity to give any necessary guidance as to

… Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Homeless and Housing law - All. Tags: , , .

More than a minor problem

By S on 28/03/2012. 12 Comments

We have news of a recent, and rather important, county court case concerning the termination of a tenancy which had been purported to have been granted to a minor, but who had since turned 18. The case in question is Croydon LBC v Tando.

You may recall that in Alexander-David v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC [2009] EWCA Civ 259 the Court of Appeal held that a landlord is unable to determine a tenancy held by a minor, because, by way of Sch.1, para.1, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (“TLATA”), the landlord holds the tenancy on the trust for the minor (the minor not being able to hold … Read the full post

Posted in FLW case note, Homeless and Housing law - All.

“Tenting on the Old Camp Ground”

By SJM on 29/02/2012. 0 Comments

Babenko v Ukraine Appn No 68726/10 of 4/1/12 is an ECHR Chamber decision which looks at the relationship between an applicant’s right to social housing from the state and Art 1 of the ECHR First Protocol.

The Applicant was a WWII veteran who registered in 2004 for social housing with the local housing executive. By 2007 he was still on the waiting list for an apartment and he began court proceedings, alleging that the Council had breached Art 46 of the Ukrainian Housing Code by failing to provide him with housing.

Art 46 is a curious amalgam of what we would understand to be homelessness and allocations law: it states … Read the full post

Posted in Allocation, Homeless and Uncategorized.
row of sheds footer image
26 pages