‘The Government’s policy of treating rough sleeping by EEA nationals as an abuse of EU treaty rights, rendering the individuals liable to removal if proportionate to do so, is unlawful, a High Court judge has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 14th December 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A Home Office policy of removing EU citizens found sleeping rough on UK streets is unlawful and must stop, the High Court has ruled.’
BBC News, 14th December 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘A Local Government Ombudsman Report on the actions of Maidstone Borough Council towards a homeless household makes for depressing reading. Both for the actions (and inactions) of the Council and for what it lays bare about the attitude to the homeless.’
Nearly Legal, 10th December 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Maidstone Borough Council should pay compensation to a homeless family of £4,170 after it accepted their forcible eviction at short notice from temporary accommodation, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has said.’
Local Government Lawyer, 29th November 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In November 2010 the appellant, Mr Doka, was evicted from his home at Laburnam Close in South East London on the basis of rent arrears. His former employer, Mr Theobald, subsequently allowed him to stay in his home in Dartford. The arrangement was initially meant to be a temporary one. But after a few weeks the arrangement was put on a more stable footing, with Mr Theobald agreeing to provide what he described as ‘full-time accommodation’, allowing Mr Doka to sleep in his son’s bedroom (while his son was away at University) for £500 a month. Mr Theobald told Mr Doka that he could live there for two-three years, while his son finished at University, though Mr Doka would be required to stay with friend’s on occasion if Mr Theobald’s son returned and needed the use of the room.’
Garden Court Chambers, 10th November 2017
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘At [53] of Hotak v Southwark LBC [2015] UKSC 30, [2016] AC 811, Lord Neuberger explained that whether or not a homeless applicant was ‘vulnerable’ within the meaning of s189(1)(c) Housing Act 1996 required consideration of whether he or she would be ‘significantly more vulnerable than ordinarily vulnerable’ as a result of being rendered homeless. In the conjoined appeals of Panayiotou and Smith, the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of the word ‘significantly’ in this context as well as a number of issues relating to the contracting out of homelessness decision making in instances where the public sector equality duty under s149 Equality Act 2010 is engaged.’
Garden Court Chambers, 10th November 2017
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘Banned from begging and sleeping in shop doorways in Middlesbrough, Bradley Grimes asked the judge in court to send him to prison rather than leave him homeless. What effect did it have?’
BBC News, 23rd November 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Annual Review of Developments in Homelessness Law presentation slides.’
Doughty Street Chambers, 17th November 2017
Source: www.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘The High Court is today [21 November] set to begin hearing a judicial review challenge to the Home Office’s policy towards rough sleeping EEA nationals.’
Local Government Lawyer, 21st November 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The issue in this second appeal was what amounts to ‘settled accommodation’, sufficient to break the chain of causation of intentional homelessness.’
Nearly Legal, 29th October 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has held that whether a person has a priority need for accommodation by reason of vulnerability requires consideration of whether he is “significantly” more vulnerable in a way that is relevant to his ability to deal with the consequences of homelessness; the question is qualitative, not quantitative.’
Arden Chambers, 19th October 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘Thomas v Lambeth LBC, County Court at Central London, 16 March 2017. This is a s.204 appeal in the County Court of a vulnerability decision by Lambeth. Of particular interest is that the judgment concerns and indeed turns on Now Medical reports on the homeless applicant and the use made of them by LB Lambeth on s.184 decision and on s.202 review.’
Nearly Legal, 3rd October 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Behind every homelessness statistic sits a story – or, more accurately – 88410 stories. Stories of people fleeing violence or abusive relationships. Stories of people struggling with ill-health and addictions. Stories of care leavers being left to struggle thorough. And, increasingly, stories of people who just can’t afford the rent. Some – the “lucky” or “deserving” few, find their way into temporary accommodation. Some sleep rough. Some turn to prostitution as a way of getting a roof for the night. It is a desperate situation.’
Nearly Legal, 18th September 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A homeless man has been jailed for at least 26 years for murdering a “kind and peace-loving” carer in London’s Hyde Park after the authorities failed to deport him on at least six occasions over two years.’
The Guardian, 24th August 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The High Court has quashed an assessment by the London Borough of Lambeth after it failed to re-assess whether a child – after a diagnosis of autism – was in need of assistance.’
Local Government Lawyer, 17th July 2017
Source: localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Four homeless street drinkers have been found guilty of killing a “vulnerable” man who was attacked in his own home.’
BBC News, 12th July 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘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 Act 1996.’
Nearly Legal, 11th July 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The defendant, Islington Borough Council, maintained an allocation scheme which provided that certain categories of people were excluded from joining the housing register, including those who had lived in the borough for less than three out of the previous five years. However, the scheme allowed for exceptions to be made. In particular, in respect of homeless applicants to whom a long-term housing duty under Part 7 Housing Act 1996 had been accepted.’
Garden Court Chambers, 5th July 2017
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘In a robustly worded judgment handed down today, Mr Justice Collins found the revised benefits cap operated to unlawfully discriminate lone parents with children under the age of two and those children under the age of two.’
Garden Court Chambers, 22nd June 2017
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘The Administrative Court has held that priority within a housing allocation scheme providing that existing social housing tenants are to be preferred over other applicants, such as the homeless and women fleeing domestic violence, for certain local lettings of eg new and refurbished accommodation was justified and accordingly had not been unlawfully discriminatory for the purposes of art.14 and ss.19, 29 Equality Act 2010; the introduction of the local lettings policies had complied with s.149 Equality Act 2010 and s.11 Children Act 2004; but the operation of a system of direct offers, used particularly to allocate accommodation to homeless applicants, had not been sufficiently set out in the scheme and was accordingly unlawful.’
Arden Chambers, 31st May 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025