‘Homeless people face being criminalised in a east London borough due to a ban on anti-social behaviour, a charity has warned.’
The Independent, 21st May 2015
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Local authority housing lawyers will potentially have to review thousands of applications for accommodation after the Supreme Court widened the scope of vulnerable applicants who are considered homeless.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 18th May 2015
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Titina Nzolameso on her successful fight to be rehoused after the benefits cap left her homeless and her children being taken into care, and the impact this could have on similar cases.’
The Guardian, 20th May 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The thing about the Supreme Court is that all those years of accrued, encrusted High Court and Court of Appeal case law just don’t matter. If the Supreme Court thinks otherwise, they are so much chaff. And so, to some extent, it proved to be in these joined appeals, where the issue was the meaning of vulnerability in s.189(1)(c) Housing Act 1996.’
Nearly Legal, 13th May 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has today issued a landmark ruling in three linked appeals over when homeless people are to be considered “vulnerable” under the Housing Act 1996 and therefore in priority need.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th May 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In a judgment of undisguised anger, Cobb J described the conduct of LB Tower Hamlets and LB Havering as “shameful” in the way in which they treated AM and his family. I haven’t come across Cobb J before but his judgment in AM v Tower Hamlets LBC and Havering LBC [2015] EWHC 1004 (Admin) is just about as good a judgment as I’ve read in a long time. The question was which authority should have “picked up” AM and his household, with children who were almost certainly in need under s.17, Children Act 1989.’
Nearly Legal, 17th April 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A local housing authority, in carrying out its duties under the Housing Act 1996, was obliged to accommodate a homeless person in suitable accommodation within its district if it was reasonably practicable to do so. The authority was to determine the suitability of the proposed accommodation by reference to the needs of the individual homeless person and each member of her household and to its location. Where accommodation was offered outside the authority’s district, the placement was to be as close as possible to where the members of the household had previously lived. In reaching its decision, the authority was required to take account of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012 (SI 2012/2601) and the guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. It was also required, by section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004, to have regard to the need to safeguard and to promote the welfare of the children concerned.’
WLR Daily, 2nd April 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘With remarkable speed, the Supreme Court has handed down its judgement in Nzolameso v Westminster City Council , having announced immediately after the hearing on 17/3/2015 that the appeal would be allowed, with reasons to follow.’
Full story
Nearly Legal, 3rd April 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Our post on Nzolameso v City of Westminster [2015] UKSC 22 is here, but behind the headlines of the judgment (and it is a good judgment) is a whole history, even between the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court hearings.’
Nearly Legal, 3rd April 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A single mother of five children has won a protracted legal battle and prevented Westminster council from removing her family to Milton Keynes.’
The Guardian, 2nd April 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld an appeal by a homeless mother of five over a London borough’s offer of accommodation 50 miles away near Milton Keynes.
The Court heard oral submissions in Nzolameso v City of Westminster earlier this month (17 March). It has now quashed Westminster City Council’s decision that it had properly discharged its duty to secure accommodation available for occupation by the appellant.’
Local Government Lawyer, 19th March 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Supreme court will decide on Wednesday if a cornerstone of the coalition government’s benefits policy is unlawful.’
The Guardian, 18th March 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Ministry of Justice has in the last few weeks quietly backed down on the promise of a full review on the effects of legal aid cuts on children and young people.’
LegalVoice, 10th March 2015
Source: www.legalvoice.org.uk
‘A total of 396 registered sex offenders – who are supposed to be monitored by police and inform authorities if they change address – are missing across the UK, with some out of contact with police for more than a decade, according to freedom of information responses to the Press Association.’
The Guardian, 10th March 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Government’s introduction through regulations of a “no permission, no fee” arrangement for making a legally aided application for judicial review was unlawful, the Divisional Court has ruled.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th March 2015
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Courtesy of Hansen Palomares Solicitors comes news of this settled Judicial Review of LB Southwark’s gatekeeping practices on homeless applications. It appears, to put it mildly, that Southwark have had a range of what should have been obviously unlawful policies on homeless applications, and even put them into leaflets and their website.’
NearlyLegal, 22nd February 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘There must be times when Court of Appeal judges think that they have bit parts in an ongoing drama – they have a walk on role. And that must be how the Court felt in Sanneh v SSWP and others [2015] EWCA Civ 49, which concerns the eligibility rules for Zambrano carers of a raft of social assistance benefits. Leading QCs and junior barristers appeared on all sides in a right ding dong that is bound to end up at the Supreme Court, which almost certainly will refer the issues to the CJEU. It also provides a glimpse of how the recent, potentially contradictory, judgments of the CJEU in Brey and Dano are, or might be, treated (although it looks like the UKSC will have the next bite of those rather earlier, in the Mirga and Samin appeals in March) and the question of the ambit of “social assistance”, which in itself is not uninteresting, is also raised, but parked by the CA, in these appeals ([84] – note: this is an important point for the future).’
NearlyLegal, 12th February 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘The Supreme Court has given a homeless mother of five permission to appeal a ruling that upheld a London borough’s offer of accommodation near Milton Keynes.’
Full story
Local Government Lawyer, 4th February 2015
Source: www.localgovernment.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025