Better Late than Never? – NearlyLegal
“Peake v LB Hackney is another cautionary tale about the importance of lodging statutory homelessness appeals within the 21 day limit.”
NearlyLegal, 18th August 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/
Category: homelessness
Whitworth Park attack: Man jailed for beating homeless man – BBC News
“A man who police said viciously attacked a homeless man in a park in Greater Manchester then pretended to be a Good Samaritan has been jailed.”
BBC News, 2nd August 2013
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Helping Female Offenders Keep Their Home – Criminal Law and Justice Weekly
“Harriet Stranks on one charity’s work to tackle re-offending and homelessness among women released from prison.”
Criminal Law and Justice Weekly, 20th July 2013
Source: www.criminallawandjustice.co.uk
Regina (CN) v Lewisham London Borough Council: Regina (ZH) v Newham London Borough Council – WLR Daily
“A housing authority was not required to issue court proceedings before evicting the occupier of accommodation made available on a licence by a housing authority pursuant to its interim duty under sections 188(1) or 190(2)(a) of the Housing Act 1996.”
WLR Daily, 11th July 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Not pending this appeal – NearlyLegal
“When bringing a second appeal to the Court of Appeal from a section 204 Housing Act 1996 appeal to the County Court, what is the applicant’s route to challenge a refusal by the local authority to provide accommodation pending appeal to the Court of Appeal?”
NearlyLegal, 8th July 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Calix v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago – WLR Daily
Calix v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2013] UKPC 15; [2013] WLR (D) 219
“Oddity of personality did not of itself diminish the value of one’s good character and, therefore, a judge had erred in reducing a plaintiff’s damages for malicious prosecution on the basis that his reputation and social standing did not amount to much because he had chosen to withdraw from society and live as a recluse.”
WLR Daily, 23rd May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Family’s ‘torture’ as they face losing home under anti-terror law – The Independent
“The family of a grandfather convicted of attempting to recruit two undercover police officers to fight for the Taliban have spoken of their ‘torture’ as they face the prospect of becoming the first in Britain to have their home seized by the courts under anti-terrorism laws.”
The Independent, 12th June 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Let’s be frank: The decision in MN and KN v London Borough of Hackney – Hardwicke Chambers
“Sleeping rough on the streets of London is not an appealing prospect. It is all the more unappealing for anyone with two young children in the grip of an unseasonably cold winter. It was in order to avoid this fate that, in January 2012, the parents of MN and KN (the claimants in this case) approached their local authority, the London Borough of Hackney, and asked for assistance.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 24th May 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
The meaning of care and attention – NearlyLegal
“SL v Westminster [2013] UKSC 27 is a very important case concerning the meaning of ‘care and attention’ in the context of s.21, National Assitance Act 1948.”
NearlyLegal, 20th May 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Hotak v Southwark London Borough Council – WLR Daily
Hotak v Southwark London Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 515; [2013] WLR (D) 180
“When assessing an applicant’s priority need for accommodation under section 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 the local housing authority was entitled to consider evidence of personal support and assistance provided by a family member which would continue should the applicant become street homeless. The weight to be given to the evidence was a separate and important consideration. The reviewing officer was required to assess the vulnerability of the applicant as it would be when he was made homeless.”
WLR Daily, 15th May 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Night Shelters, dwellings and housing benefit – NearlyLegal
“This a late note on OR -v- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Isle of Anglesey CC [2013] UKUT 065 (AAC) because, bluntly, I had read it quickly at the time and overlooked its broader significance.”
NearlyLegal, 19th May 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Priority need – NearlyLegal
“Hotak v Southwark LBC [2013] EWCA Civ 515 concerned a short point on whether an authority was entitled to have regard to the assistance that a homeless person would receive, in the event he became homeless, when determining whether he was vulnerable or not.”
NearlyLegal, 15th May 2013
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
Don’t look down: The decision in El-Dinnaoui v Westminster City Council – Hardwicke Chambers
“The duty that local authorities have to accommodate homeless applicants in priority need is well established. But that duty, in section 193 of the Housing Act 1996, ceases to apply if a homeless applicant refuses to accept accommodation which is suitable for them.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 12th April 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
Three teenagers sentenced for homeless man’s murder – The Guardian
“Three teenagers who beat a homeless man to death following a dare have been ordered to be detained.”
The Guardian, 15th April 2013
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Six months, no jail sentences: call for controversial squatter law to be axed – The Independent
“Six months after new laws were introduced to ‘protect homeowners’ from squatters, police have not arrested a single person for displacing residents from their home, leading to calls for the legislation to be scrapped.”
The Independent, 24th March 2013
Source: www.independent.co.uk
Sharif (FC) (Respondent) v The London Borough of Camden (Appellant) – Supreme Court
Sharif (FC) (Respondent) v The London Borough of Camden (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 10 | UKSC 2011/0117 (YouTube)
Supreme Court, 20th February 2013
When a deficiency makes no difference – NearlyLegal
“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/
Ibrahim v Wandsworth London Borough Council – WLR Daily
Ibrahim v Wandsworth London Borough Council: [2013] EWCA Civ 20; [2013] WLR (D) 38
“A local authority reviewer’s duty under regulation 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999, to invite representations from the applicant where the reviewer was minded to make a decision against the interests of the applicant despite there being a deficiency in the local authority’s original decision, was not engaged where the deficiency was not the subject of any complaint by the applicant on the review and had been neither upheld nor decided upon by the reviewer.”
WLR Daily, 30th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Model charity: ‘whatever happens, we’ll carry on, but it won’t be easy’ – The Guardian
“Southampton and Winchester Visitors Group, which supports destitute refugees, may be hit by sweeping legal aid cuts.”
The Guardian, 11th December 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Triumph of substance over form – Hardwicke Chambers
“In Pieretti v. LB Enfield [2011] 2 All ER 642 the Court of Appeal held that a local authority in exercising its powers under Part VII Housing Act 1996 (Homelessness) was carrying out a ‘function’ for the purposes of s.49A. It was therefore an obligation on the Local Authority to have ‘due regard’ to the factors set out in the section and, in the case of homelessness, in particular to have ‘due regard’ to ‘the need to take steps to take account of disabled persons’ disabilities’. Moreover, this duty arose irrespective of whether or not the applicant, or their advisers, had raised disability as an issue.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 30th November 2012
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
