“Hugh Muir examines whether home owners need more protection from squatters – and what effect criminalisation will have on the homeless.”
The Guardian, 6th October 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The Government has been urged not to criminalise squatting after a report found it would lead to an increase in some of the most vulnerable homeless people sleeping rough.”
The Independent, 4th October 2011
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“Prisoners should carry out work while in jail as part of the process of tackling the growing ‘feral underclass’, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said today.”
The Independent, 4th October 2011
Source: www.independent.co.uk
“At least 100 families are thought to have been made homeless by arson and looting since Saturday with the government pledging sufficient funds to give financial assistance to others whose homes have been damaged.”
The Guardian, 11th August 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“Options for dealing with squatters – impact assessment.”
Ministry of Justice, 13th July 2011
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
“The government’s own impact assessment of plans to criminalise squatting has acknowledged that it could boost homelessness and rough sleeping, and target those who are already suffering from mental health and addiction problems.”
The Guardian, 13th July 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Oxford City Council v Bull [2011] EWCA Civ 609; [2011] WLR (D) 169
“Where the father of children who resided with their mother, from whom he was separated, allowed them to share his one-room accommodation, he became homeless intentionally, within the meaning of section 191(1) of the Housing Act 1996, on being evicted from that accommodation.”
WLR Daily, 18th May 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Sharif v Camden London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 463; [2011] WLR (D) 148
“A local housing authority’s duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to secure that accommodation was available for occupation by a homeless applicant was not discharged by providing two self-contained flats with no shared communal living areas, one for occupation by the applicant and her sister and the other for occupation by her father, because such accommodation was not available for occupation by the applicant together with any other persons who normally resided with her as members of her family within the meaning of section 176 of the 1996 Act.”
WLR Daily, 20th April 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Makisi v Birmingham City Council; Yosief v Same; Nagi v Same [2011] EWCA Civ 355; [2011] WLR (D) 124
“An applicant for housing under the homelessness provisions who, on an review of a decision to refuse accommodation, had a right to make oral representations where there had been a deficiency or irregularity in the original decision, could insist on a face-to-face hearing with the reviewer at which he or his representative could make representations.”
WLR Daily, 31st March 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“Children as young as 13 are being released from custody without a safe place to live, forcing them into a cycle of homelessness and reoffending, research has shown.”
The Guardian, 28th February 2011
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council [2011] UKSC 3; [2011] WLR (D) 18
” ‘Domestic violence’ in section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 included physical violence, threatening or intimidating behaviour and any other form of abuse which, directly or indirectly, might give rise to the risk of harm.”
WLR Daily, 26th January 2011
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Pieretti v Enfield London Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1104; [2010] WLR (D) 248
“S 49A(1)(d) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 required a local authority, in carrying out its functions under Pt VII of the Housing Act 1996, to take due steps to take account of a disabled persons’ disabilities.”
WLR Daily, 13th October 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“An applicant for accommodation could establish a priority need under the Housing Act 1996 because a dependent child was residing with her, where the dependent child was an European Economic Area national from abroad, even though the child did not have a permanent right to reside but was subject to immigration control, but the housing authority’s duty was then the restricted duty provided for under s 193(7AA) of the 1996 Act as amended. Under either the amended or unamended provisions the duty would have been the full duty had the dependent child had a right of permanent residence in the United Kingdom. Moreover, a failure by the host member state to enforce the removal of the dependent child after three months did not graduate by waiver to her acquiring a permanent right to residence.”
WLR Daily, 28th July 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“A local housing authority’s duty, under section 193 of the Housing Act 1996, to secure that accommodation be made available for an unintentionally homeless person who had a priority need did not give the homeless person a ‘civil right’ within the meaning of art 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms because the provision of appropriate accommodation was dependent upon the exercise of evaluative judgments by the local authority as to whether the statutory criteria had been satisfied and how the homeless person’s need ought to be met.”
WLR Daily, 23rd March 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
R (Savage) v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2009] EWHC 88 (Admin); [2010] WLR (D) 15
“In the discharge of its duty to provide advice and assistance to an intentionally homeless claimant, the local authority had to apply its policy flexibly and take into account the claimant’s own particular circumstances.”
WLR Daily, 1st February 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
De-Winter Heald and others v Brent London Borough Council [2009] EWCA Civ 930; [2009] WLR (D) 289
“Local housing authorities were entitled to contract out some or all of the reviews they were required to carry out under s 202 of the Housing Act 1996.”
WLR Daily, 4th September 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina (Aweys and Others) v Birmingham City Council; Moran v Manchester City Council
House of Lords
“A local housing authority had been entitled to decide that overcrowded families were homeless but to leave them there in the short term; it was a question of fact what term was too long.”
The Times, 7th July 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“Although it had not been reasonable for families to remain in their current accommodation indefinitely, the local housing authority had been entitled to leave them there in the short term, it being a question of fact whether the period was too long, but the authority had not been entitled to rely on its allocation policy to fulfil its duty. It had not been reasonable for a woman to continue to occupy a women’s refuge indefinitely, and she had accordingly remained “homeless” under the Housing Act 1996.”
WLR Daily, 1st July 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
Regina (G) v Southwark London Borough Council
House of Lords
“A local authority’s children’s services unit could not purport to fulfil its duties to look after a homeless child merely by referring him to the homeless persons unit.”
The Times, 4th June 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Regina (G) v Southwark London Borough Council [2009] UKHL 26; [2009] WLR (D) 159
“When a child aged 16 or 17 who had been excluded from his family home applied to the children’s service department of the local authority for accommodation under s 20 of the Children Act 1989, and he satisfied all the requirements of s 20(1), it was not open to the authority to refer the child to the local housing authority for accommodation as a homeless person under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.”
WLR Daily, 20th May 2009
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
© Inner Temple Library 2025