“The question for the Court of Appeal in this second appeal from a homeless appeal, was ‘How should the courts deal with a plainly deficient homelessness decision when the deficiency has had no adverse consequences for the applicant?’. The issue being the effect of the lack of a ‘minded to’ letter requesting submissions under Regulation 8(2) Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999. As we’ll see, the Court of Appeal agrees on the result, but not on the way of getting to it.”
NearlyLegal, 3rd February 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
