‘C was accepted for the full housing duty by Islington, with her 3 children, as a result of domestic violence. C is profoundly deaf. She had been living in Southwark, but following the DV, was in refuge in Islington and applied as homeless there. She was, eventually, given 3 bed temporary accommodation in Islington.’
Nearly Legal, 6th June 2017
Source: nearlylegal.co.uk
‘R (oao Sambotin) v London Borough of Brent (2017) EWHC 1190 (Admin). Once a local authority has made a homeless decision under section 184 Housing Act 1996, can it change its mind? That was the issue in this judicial review.’
Nearly Legal, 21st May 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has declined to depart from its previous judgment in Ali v Birmingham CC that the right to homelessness accommodation under s193 Housing Act 1996 was not a civil right under art 6, despite a decision of the ECtHR to the contrary in Ali v UK; it has affirmed the dicta of Lord Neuberger in Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames LBC that a “benevolent approach” is to be taken to homelessness review decisions under s202; and said (obiter) that the principles governing the right of appeal to the county court under s204 had been authoritatively established by the House of Lords in Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC and other cases including Holmes-Moorhouse, and should be taken as settled.’
Arden Chambers, 10th May 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘The Homelessness Reduction Act has now received royal assent. The Act itself is here. There is no date yet for it to come into force – there will need to be statutory guidance produced first – and the current guess is that it is likely to be in 2018. Of course, what the Act mostly does is amend Housing Act 1996 Part VII.’
Nearly Legal, 14th May 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea S [2017] UKSC 36, 10 May 2017. For the last 15 years, whether the right of the homeless to suitable council accommodation is an Art.6(1) ECHR civil right has been argued over in the courts. And the question arose again in today’s judgment of the Supreme Court.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 10th May 2017
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The Supreme Court has upheld a reviewing officer’s decision that it was reasonable for a refugee to accept an offer of accommodation which she claimed reminded her of prison in Iran.’
Local Government Lawyer, 10th May 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘More than one in three councils (36%) are targeting rough sleepers with enforcement measures such as Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs) and Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs), research by national homelessness charity Crisis has suggested.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th April 2017
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Local Government Ombudsman has issued a quite withering decision on a complaint about Barnet Council’s failure to make a formal decision on repeated homeless applications by a homeless woman.’
Nearly Legal, 30th March 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Court of Appeal has held that the four-stage approach to considering the public sector equality duty in s.149 Equality Act 2010 in Hotak v Southwark LBC [2015] UKSC 30; [2016] AC 811, is concerned only with vulnerability under s.189(1)(c) Housing Act 1996. In cases concerning suitability of accommodation, a review officer had to show (on a “stand-back” reading of the decision) recognition as to whether a homeless applicant had a disability and whether the accommodation was unsuitable having regard to that disability and its impact on the applicant compared to those without such a disability.’
Arden Chambers, January 2017
Source: www.ardenchambers.com
‘The London Borough of Croydon v Lopes [2017] EWHC 33 (QB). Costs on settled s.204 Housing Act 1996 appeals – the issue that never goes away. The latest instalment also brings with it some rather sharp findings by the Court of Appeal on the extent of inquiries the council should have made.’
Nearly Legal, 25th January 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘As has been reported here and here, Westminster City Council have decided to adopt various new housing policies. In particular, there are new proposed policies on temporary accommodation and permanent accommodation offers for homeless households.’
Nearly Legal, 16th January 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A judicial review in which two local authorities fought over which of them was gong to have to owe a housing duty to a homeless applicant. The central issue was whether, in the circumstances, Ealing could refuse a referral under the local connection provisions by RBK&C. However, the finding on ‘same facts’ second homeless applications has much broader application and should be taken note of by everyone.’
Nearly Legal, 15th January 2017
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Thousands of people are being made homeless every year because they cannot find lawyers to help them resist eviction, charities are warning.’
The Guardian, 18th December 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Sally Robertson considers the decision of R (GS) v London Borough of Camden [2016] EWHC 1762 (Admin), 27 July 2016 in this blog.’
Cloisters, 9th November 2016
Source: www.cloisters.com
‘This was judicial review of Hillingdon’s refusal to accept a homeless application from Ms A.’
Nearly Legal, 7th November 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘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.’
Nearly Legal, 26th October 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Monday’s big news was the Govt announcement that it will support the Homelessness Reduction Bill – Bob Blackman MP’s private members bill, due for second reading on 28 October. But exactly what is it that the Govt is supporting?’
Nearly Legal, 25th October 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 have (finally) been made to come into force on 30 October 2016. These sort out the anomaly highlighted in Romans v Southwark LBC and SSDCLG and Alabi v SSDCLG about those with leave to remain granted under Appendix FM. Their eligibility for housing and homeless assistance is confirmed. A number of appeals have been stayed pending the regulations, which should now be resolved.’
Nearly Legal, 3rd October 2016
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The organisers of a homelessness protest, in which around 50 rough sleepers have pitched tents in Leeds city centre, are due to appear in court to fight a bid to disperse them.’
The Guardian, 3rd October 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Four Nottingham City Council posters urging people not to give money to beggars have been banned for being likely to cause widespread offence and reinforcing negative stereotypes.’
The Independent, 28th September 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025