Housing law news and comment
Southwark LBC are involved in two cases are being heard in the House of Lords next week. Hanoman v Southwark is a Right to Buy dispute and R (G) v Southwark is about whether there is a lawful distinction between a child who is “in need of accommodation” or merely “in need of assistance with accommodation.”
The judgments will, of course, be noted here as soon as they come out.… Read the full post
R (MM) v LB of Lewisham [2009] EWHC 416 (Admin)
Slapped wrists all round for Lewisham’s Children’s Social Care Services in another Children Act 1989 “child in need” case, but in this case the issue was not whether the claimant was a child, but whether she was “in need”.
In July 2007 the claimant, then aged 17 and a half, was referred to Lewisham’s Social Services Department by a support worker at the refuge she was staying at. The support worker told Lewisham that the claimant had come to the refuge fleeing domestic violence, she was vulnerable and lacking life skills. In the same month Lewisham decided not to support … Read the full post
The Court of Appeal has – today – given judgment in R (Liverpool CC) v London Borough of Hillingdon and Ayan Khan (interested party) [2009] EWCA Civ 1702, a case concerning two local authorities who were in dispute over which one of them should be providing services to Ayan Khan (“AK”). It is probably more of a Children Act 1989 case than a pure housing case, which is why we only covered it briefly earlier.
AK was a Pakistani national. On 8 April 2008 he arrived in the UK illegally and under a false passport. He claimed asylum in Liverpool the next day. Liverpool CC (“Liverpool”) carried out an … Read the full post
The housing/social services relationship is one of the “hot topics” in housing law at the moment and, before we come to R (on the application of A) v Coventry City Council [2009] EWHC 34 (Admin), a bit of background is needed.
A bit of background
There are two principle sections in the Children Act 1989 which are of interest to housing lawyers. Section 17 contains a power to provide a “range and level of services” to children “in need”. This can include money or accommodation. Section 20, by contrast, is a mandatory duty to provide accommodation for children “in need” who appear to the local social services authority to require … Read the full post
R (Hassan) v Croydon LBC (Admin Court 13 January 2009. Only reported so far in Arden Chambers eflash 336) was a judicial review on the discretion to secure accommodation pending s.202 review under s.188(3) HA 1996 and whether a potential duty under s.20 Children Act 1989 by the authority should be considered.
The applicant, together with her children aged 10 and 3, had fled Doncaster in 2005. In an initial application to Croydon, she stated she had fled through violence by a gang of youths. She was found not homeless. In a subsequent application,in 2006, she stated that the real reason was domestic violence, of which she had been ashamed. … Read the full post
“That is the question, easy to ask but not so easy to answer” – as it takes the Court of Appeal 40 pages (right before Christmas, thank you very much, hence this rather late note) to answer that question in R (A) v LB Croydon; R (M) v LB Lambeth [2008] EWCA Civ 1445 I’d have to agree.
M and A arrived in the UK from Libya and Afghanistan respectively. Both applied for aslyum – M to Lambeth and A to Croydon. Both applicants said that they were under 18, but social workers decided that they were over 18. The decision on age is an important one – if an individual … Read the full post
AC, R (on the application of) v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWHC 3036 (Admin) was a judicial review which concerned funding for an illegal overstayer and her family under s.17 Children Act 1989, although it would also apply for s.20 funding.
The Claimant had come to the UK in 2000 with her oldest child. She overstayed on a family visit 6 month visa and susequent appeals were refused by 2003. Since then she had a further three children. Following domestic violence in 2007, the Claimant lived with her aunt. This ended in March 2008, when Birmingham accommodated her and the children under s.17 Children Act 1989 on conditions. The Claimant … Read the full post
Latest Decisions Administrative Court from Bailii Latest Court of Appeal Civil Judgments from Bailii Latest Decisions Supreme Court from Bailii
Recent Comments