Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Allocation
ASB
Assured Shorthold tenancy
assured-tenancy
Benefits and care
Deposits
Disrepair
Homeless
Housing Conditions
Housing law - All
Introductory and Demoted tenancies
Leasehold and shared ownership
Licences and occupiers
Mortgage possession
Nuisance
Possession
Regulation and planning
right-to-buy
secure-tenancy
Succession
Trusts and Estoppel
Unlawful eviction and harassment
14/12/2016

Nearly a passage to India

Thanks to Garden Court and Justine Compton for their note of this case.

CM v Westminster CC. County Court at Central London. 1 December 2016

This was a s.204 appeal of Westminster CC’s decision, upheld on review, that Ms CM had accommodation available to her, so was not homeless.

Westminster had decided that Ms CM had accommodation available to her with her children in India.

Ms CM had come to the UK 16 years ago, and had been granted British Citizenship. She had not seen her children for 30 years.

On the s.204 appeal, Westminster argued that Ms CM was not forthcoming with information about her children and, therefore, it was entitled to conclude that she did have accommodation available to her.

Ms CM argued that:

  1. the council had not made sufficient enquiries
  2. the council did not properly consider whether Ms CM had any right to occupy her children’s accommodation
  3. the council had not considered whether it was reasonable for Ms CM to relocate to India having been in the UK for 16 years and being a British Citizen (as per Waltham Forest LBC v Maloba [2008] 1 WLR 2079)
  4. the council had failed to consider cultural issues involved and had required Ms CM to prove her case

The appeal was upheld on all four grounds, the decision quashed and remitted to the council for a fresh decision.

Comment

Anyone in any doubt about the truly adversarial nature of homeless applications these days should take note. (In particular, given the stuff that the Local Government Association are spouting in briefing notes on the Homelessness Reduction Bill, the LGA and indeed MPs should take note).

Westminster’s position appears to have been simply that because Ms CM hadn’t provided them with chapter and verse about her children – who she had not seen for 3o years! – that they were entitled to assume that she could live with them. The point of s.184 enquiries appears to have completely escaped the council. It is not to establish areas of lack of clarity that the council can then interpret in whatever manner they consider most beneficial for them. Nonetheless, Westminster maintained their position through review up to appeal hearing.

 

Giles Peaker is a solicitor and partner in the Housing and Public Law team at Anthony Gold Solicitors in South London. You can find him on Linkedin and on Twitter. Known as NL round these parts.

0 Comments

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Ben Reeve Lewis Friday Newsround #278 - The Landlord Law Blog - […] in the land of the mad, Nearly Legal brought to our attention one of the whackiest decisions I have…

Leave a Reply (We can't offer advice on individual issues)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.