R (MT) v Oxford CC, High Ct, (Lawtel note only as far as I can tell) is an interesting little case on capacity and homelessness
Mr MT lacks capacity and is unable to manage his housing or financial affairs. He (or, I suspect, his father who was also his litigation friend) applied to Oxford CC as homeless, but Oxford decided that he could not do so. Their reasoning was based on an old case called R v Oldham MBC ex p Garlick and other appeals (1993) 25 HLR 319, in which the House of Lords had held that a person could only apply for assistance as homeless under (then) Pt.3, Housing Act 1985 (now, of course, Pt.7, Housing Act 1996), if he had capacity to understand an offer and reject or accept it.
MT contended that Garlick was no longer good law in light of, in particular, Art.14, ECHR (prohibition of discrimination in enjoyment of Convention rights). Interestingly, there was no Equality Act challenge (as far as the note suggests). Sadly for Mr MT, the High Court was having none of it. Garlick was still good law. There were other regimes which could assist MT (assuming he qualified) e.g. National Assistance Act 1948.
** Update **
We’ve heard from counsel for Oxford (Lindsay Johnson of Doughty St Chambers) who confirms that MT argued that Garlick should not be followed, having regard to the position under Art.8 and Art.14. The High Ct rejected that since, as a House of Lords decision, it was binding and none of the post-HRA exceptions identified in Kay v Lambeth applied.