A question of authority – settled accommodation

Well now. I’m not sure what to make of this. The Supreme Court has refused permission to appeal in Doka v London Borough of Southwark. But… Doka v Southwark concerned what could amount to ‘settled accommodation’ for homelessness matters, and specifically for ‘breaking the chain’ of intentional homelessness. Our report on the Court of Appeal […]

Late and late again – intentional homelessness and benefit claims

Oduneye v Brent London Borough Council (2018) EWCA Civ 1595 (not on Bailii yet – judgment on Lexis) This was a second appeal from a s.204 appeal on Brent’s decision that Ms O was intentionally homeless. Ms O was in person. She had sought an adjournment to seek legal representation but this was a fortnight […]

Not looked into enough to be unaware

Trindade v London Borough of Hackney (2017) EWCA Civ 942 A second appeal of a homeless decision that Ms T was intentionally homeless, on the issues of whether Ms T’s actions were “an act or omission in good faith on the part of a person who was unaware of any relevant fact” as per s.192(2) Housing […]

Homeless Reduction Bill – part 2

After my rantette about clause 1 of the Homeless Reduction Bill as published for second reading, it is time to turn to the substance of the Bill in terms of new duties and so on. And, some drafting issues aside, these are broadly positive. But first, I should clarify some remarks I made about Wales […]

Affordability and intentionality – adding it up

Samuels v Birmingham City Council [ 2015 ] EWCA Civ 1051 A second appeal from a s.204 County Court appeal that addressed the council’s decision-making on whether the property from which Ms Samuels had become homeless was affordable (and thus, whether she was intentionally homeless for failing to pay the full rent). There was a […]

What’s the Din? The Supremes’ Cut

Haile v Waltham Forest LBC [2015] UKSC 34 is the second of the triptych of cases which are before the UKSC (We have yet to have the outcome of the third one, the eligibility appeals in Samin/Mirga).  The first, Johnson/Hotak/Kanu, as NL wrote, is particularly significant because of its reworking of the vulnerability test, overwriting encrusted […]

Expectations are not existing facts.

Enfield LBC v Najim (2015) CA (Civ Div) 04/03/2015 [Note on Lawtel and here. Not on Bailii yet] This was Enfield’s appeal from a s.204 appeal quashing Enfield’s decision and review decision that Ms N was intentionally homeless. Ms N had a one year assured shorthold tenancy. She had withheld rent on three occasions: on the […]

What’s the Din?*

In Haile v Waltham Forest LBC [2014] EWCA Civ 792, the question for the Court of Appeal was the relevant date for determining whether an applicant is intentionally homeless.  On the facts, this was a significant question: Ms Haile had left her room in a hostel on 25th October 2011 to go to stay with a […]

Intentionally homeless via co-tenant.

Viackiene v Tower Hamlets LBC (2013) CA (Civ Div) 11/12/2013 [Not on Bailii, note on Lawtel, not seen full transcript] Ms V was the joint tenant of a private property under an assured short hold tenancy. The other tenant was J. Both were jointly and severally liable for the rent. However, there was an arrangement […]

Shortfalls, guidance and intentionality

Birmingham City Council v Balog [2013] EWCA Civ 1582 A s.202 review decision on affordability was at the centre of this second appeal, brought by Birmingham after a s.204 appeal decision went against them. The issue was to what extent the review decision should manifest attention to the statutory guidance (the July 2006 Guidance) on […]