Oxford City Council v Bull  EWCA Civ 609
In which the Court of Appeal had to consider whether the homeless applicant had made himself intentionally homeless and whether he was in priority need.
Mr Bull separated from his wife in June 2009 and left the home, where she was a secure tenant of the local authority, and moved into a room in a shared house. After a couple of months their three children moved in with him into the shared house. Mr Bull’s landlord then gave him notice to quit. Upon an an application to Oxford as homeless, he and the children were given temporary accommodation. Oxford subsequently issued … Read the full post
Hounslow v Powell; Leeds v Hall; Birmingham v Frisby  UKSC 8
[This is probably a work in progress. There may be further additions and comments as people get a chance/have a brainwave. We've also ended up writing this as something of a tag team. Chief did most of it and starts us off.]
Sometime ago Dave opened the door to Tarantino references in relation to the vexed issue of Art.8 of the ECHR and possession proceedings. In his post on Zehentner v Austria he pointed out that, just as American hitmen consider that European fast food chains do certain things rather differently, so the appellate courts in England and … Read the full post
As you all know, we six merry souls write NL because, well, we love housing / landlord and tenant law. Our fearless leader has even been described as a “nut”* for the subject. We’re glad that we can produce something that people find useful but, even that is secondary to the fact that we just enjoy writing about housing law.
It occurs to us, however, that you might find some value in what we do. We don’t want your money** but there are plenty of people who do. Accordingly, we’ve decided to ask that, if any of our readers find value in what we produce, they make a donation to … Read the full post
Local Government Ombudsman’s decision: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (09 001 262)
‘Ms Kenza’ (not her real name) approached LB Hammersmith and Fulham as homeless when she had to leave her private rented home following an incident of domestic violence. She was 8 months pregnant.
Hammersmith did not place her in temporary accommodation pending enquiries. Instead officers encouraged her to find accommodation in the private sector. A homeless application was not mentioned by the officers. She was later given a night’s accommodation by the out of hours service and, she asserted, she then spent 4 days sleeping rough in a park.
She complained to the Ombudsman that Hammersmith … Read the full post
[Update 03/04/2011 - the Court of Appeal decision on the further appeal in this case is here.]
Makisi v Birmingham City Council (Birmingham County Court Appeal Ref: BM9 0166A, 6 Jan 2010)
This was the County Court hearing of a s.204 Housing Act 1996 appeal following s.202 review of a decision that an offer of accommodation was suitable and reasonable to accept, and subsequent discharge of duty under s.193. It is only a County Court appeal decision, but there are some interesting points on the review process worth noting.
Ms Makisi had applied as homeless, with her three young children. Birmingham had accepted the full Housing Act 1996 duty. … Read the full post
Yemshaw v Hounslow LBC (2009) CA (Civ Div) 15/12/2009 [only as Lawtel note so far]
This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a s.202 appeal on the issue of what ‘violence’ in s.177(1) Housing Act 1996 meant. S.177(1) provides that it is not reasonable to remain in accommodation where the person has been subject to violence or the threat of violence.
Ms Y claimed that she had to abandon the family home with her children because of her husband’s abusive behaviour. She stated that, although her husband had not physically assaulted her, she had been subjected to emotional, psychological and financial abuse. Housnlow found that this was … Read the full post
News reaches us here at NL of a decision of the High Court (Birmingham District Registry) by the name of Mehari, Kelly and JI v Birmingham City Council (9 and 10 November 2009) given by Hickenbottom J. Details are sketchy and, as ever, we’d be grateful for any further information.
As we understand it, persons who apply for assistance to BCC are asked to complete a form relating to their reasons for leaving their previous accomodation. Unless BCC are satisfied that the person is at risk of harm in that accomodation, they don’t provide interim accomodation (i.e. they expect the applicant to go back to the previous accomodation).
His … Read the full post