Tag Archive for 'housing eligibility'

Morris dancing

By NL on 28/09/2011. 8 Comments

Bah v The United Kingdom – 56328/07 [2011] ECHR 1448

This is a decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the regulations for eligibility for housing support, after the declaration of incompatibility in Westminster v Morris [2005] EWCA Civ 1184.

It is a very significant case, not least because it has a direct bearing on the ‘corrective’ amendment that the Government made 4 years later in response to Morris via Schedule 15 Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 and the possibilities of any challenge to that Schedule. It also has broader implications for differential conditions for access to social welfare benefits in general, where a child subject to immigration … Read the full post

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

It’s not how long it is…

By NL on 22/02/2011. 14 Comments

…but what you do at the end of it that counts*

FMB (EEA reg 6(2)(a) – ‘temporarily unable to work’) Uganda [2010] UKUT 447 (IAC)

The Immigration and Asylum Tribunal (Upper Chamber) is not our usual stamping ground, but this is a decision which has considerable broader significance for housing and benefit eligibility. It dates from November 2010, but we’ve just come across it. At issue was the meaning of Regulation 6(2)(a) Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, which hold that an EEA worker does not cease to be treated as worker (and hence lose the right to reside and benefit/housing eligibility) if:

that the person “is temporarily unable to

… Read the full post

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

Teixeira and A8 nationals

By NL on 16/10/2010. 0 Comments

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v JS (IS) [2010] UKUT 347 (AAC) [not on Bailii yet]

Just a quick note on this Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) case, which found that the Art 12 Ibrahim/Teixeira rights applied to an A8 national who had been working under registration, but had not completed the 12 months before becoming unemployed and claiming Income Support. The Polish woman’s children entered education in England while she was working.

The Secretary of State’s argument that Baumbast and Art 12 rights did not accrue to Accession 8 nationals until after the 12 month period – and that until then the workers rights are qualified, so … Read the full post

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

Permission 2 – given: EU child and Homeless duty

By NL on 22/03/2010. 0 Comments

Lekpo-Bozua v Hackney LBC [2010] EWCA Civ 222 [Not on Bailii]

Ms L-B had applied to Hackney as homeless. Hackney accepted that she was eligible, homeless, not intentionally homeless and in priority need, because her niece, a child, lived with her. However, while Ms L-B was a UK citizen, her niece was an EU national. Hackney contended that this meant the niece was a restricted person within the meaning of section 184(7) Housing Act 1996:

so that its duty to re-house her was the more limited duty imposed by section 193(2) and (7)(AA) of the Act. That meant that its duty to the applicant continued only until she accepted or

… Read the full post

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

Right of residence and children in education

By NL on 26/02/2010. 16 Comments

LB Harrow v Ibrahim C‑310/08 on reference from the Court of Appeal (LB Harrow v Ibrahim and another [2008] EWCA Civ 386. Our note here).

The question was whether:

(a) children of EU citizens who have installed themselves in a member state during the exercise by their parents of rights as residence as workers in that state are entitled to reside in the state in order to attend general educational courses;

(b) a parent who is the primary carer of those children – irrespective of his or her nationality – is entitled to reside with the children in order to allow the children to exercise that right. The … Read the full post

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

Your name's not down, you're not getting in

By NL on 26/02/2009. 1 Comment

R (Ariemuguvbe) v LB Islington (2009) QBD (Admin) 24/02/09 [just on Lawtel, not on Bailii yet - what's up with Bailii?] concerned the meaning of ‘household’ for the purposes of Part VI Housing Act 1996.

A. had applied to Islington as homeless and Islington had accepted the full housing duty. A. and her family were temporarily accommodated in a three bed property. The family comprised A., her husband, her five adult children and three grandchildren. The five adult children were all subject to immigration control.

A. then applied under Part VI for permanent accommodation. Islington offered a two bedroom property on the basis that it was inappropriate to take the … Read the full post

Posted in Allocation, FLW case note, Housing law - All and secure-tenancy. Tags: , , , , .

EU Workers and housing eligibility

By NL on 21/12/2008. 0 Comments

Barry v London Borough of Southwark [2008] EWCA Civ 1440 concerned an EEA national’s eligibility for social housing, via a Part VII application.

EEA ‘workers’ are eligible for housing assistance as they are not persons subject to immigration control for the purposes of s.185(1) Housing Act 1996 and Reg 6 of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) Regulations. The definition of “worker” in reg 6(1) of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations (“the EEA regulations”) applies.

Mr Barry contened that his case fell within reg 6(2)(b)(ii) of the EEA regulations:

(2) A person who is no longer working shall not cease to be treated as a worker for

… Read the full post

Posted in Allocation, FLW case note and Housing law - All. Tags: , , , , , .
row of sheds footer image
2 pages