Ugiagbe v Southwark London Borough Council
Court of Appeal
“Failure to follow informal advice to go to a local housing authority’s homeless persons unit when threatened with eviction, did not make an applicant intentionally homeless.”
The Times, 18th February 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Ugiagbe v Southwark London Borough Council [2009] EWCA Civ 31; [2009] WLR (D) 47
“A person’s failure to go to the Homeless Persons Unit for advice before leaving accommodation which she occupied did not amount to a lack of ‘good faith’ for the purposes of s 191(2) of the Housing Act 1996 rendering her intentionally homeless.”
WLR Daily, 11th February 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.
Holmes-Moorhouse v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames [2009] UKHL 7; [2009] WLR (D) 31
“When a court in family proceedings made a shared residence order providing for children to spend alternate weeks with each of their parents, and the father was homeless, a housing authority was not obliged, on account of the order, to regard the father as a person in priority need of accommodation on the ground that dependent children might reasonably expected to reside with him.”
WLR Daily, 4th February 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.
Banks v Kingston upon Thames Royal Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1443; [2008] WLR (D) 397
“A purposive interpretation should be given to reg 8(2) of the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 to ensure that, where a reviewing officer was minded to confirm a decision on different grounds, the applicant should be given an opportunity to make representations.”
WLR Daily, 18th December 2008
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.
Simms v Islington London Borough Council
Court of Appeal
“The risk that a recovering drug addict’s relapse might be caused by his homelessness did not entitle him to be treated as having a priority need for accommodation.”
The Times, 3rd December 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“A local housing authority’s discharge of its statutory duty to rehouse a homeless person in priority need where that person had refused an offer of suitable accommodation could not be challenged other than by administrative review subject appeal to the county court, which was the equivalent of judicial review rather than a full rehearing appeal, even where the sole issue for the reviewing officer was a simple one of primary fact. The European Court of Human Rights’ decision in Tsfayo v United Kingdom [2007] LGR 1 did not change the relevant law.”
WLR Daily, 10th November 2008
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.
Boreh v Ealing London Borough Council
Court of Appeal
“The suitability of accommodation offered by a local authority was not to be judged exclusively by reference to its condition at the time of the offer, but could and should take into account any adaptations or alterations that were proposed to be made at the date of the council’s review decision.”
The Times, 11th November 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Boreh v Ealing London Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1176; [2008] WLR (D) 334
“The suitability of accommodation offered by a local housing authority was not to be judged exclusively by reference to its condition at the time of the offer, but could and should take into account any adaptations or alterations that were proposed to be made. However, in considering the suitability of a house, it was only legitimate to take into account proposals as to adaptations that were made as at the date of the authority’s decision and not right up to the date of the review decision.”
WLR Daily, 30th October 2008
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 (RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
House of Lords
“The policy of disentitling persons without accommodation from receiving the disability premium to which they would otherwise be entitled in their income support amounted to discrimination within article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights but was lawful as it could be justified on policy grounds.”
The Times, 27th October 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
“The policy of disentitling persons without accommodation from receiving the disability premium to which they would otherwise be entitled in their income support amounted to discrimination within art 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms but it was lawful as it could be justified on policy grounds.”
WLR Daily, 23rd October 2008
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.
“A legal loophole which allows homeless sex offenders to roam free – ‘living’ at a bus stop, park bench or in a tree – has been branded ‘astonishing’ by a senior judge.”
Daily Telegraph, 26th September 2008
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Johnston v Lambeth London Borough Council
Court of Appeal
“A local government officer reviewing a decision that an applicant did not have priority need as a homeless person could neither dispense with the statutory duty to consider the earlier decision nor, if mindful to find against the applicant, to give notice to allow the applicant to make written or oral representations.”
The Times, 30th June 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
Johnston v London Borough of Lambeth [2008] EWCA Civ 690; [2008] WLR (D) 200
“A council officer reviewing a decision that an applicant did not have priority need as a homeless person could not dispense with the statutory obligation to consider the earlier decision and, if mindful to find against the applicant, to give notice of his grounds in order for the applicant to make written or oral representations.”
WLR Daily, 19th June 2008
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.
Moran v Manchester City Council
Court of Appeal
“Two women, who had been made homeless unintentionally when they fled to women’s reguges from domestic violence, became homeless intentionally when they were evicted from the refuges as a result of their own misconduct.”
The Times, 20th May 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“A women’s refuge was accommodation which, having regard to various factors, it could be reasonable for women to continue to occupy.”
WLR Daily, 17th April 2008
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.
Omar v Westminster City Council
Court of Appeal
“An officer reviewing a local authority decision that it had discharged its housing duty by offering suitable acccommodation had to examine the facts as they appeared at the date of that decision.”
The Times, 25th March 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
R (Aweys and others) v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWCA Civ 48; [2008] WLR (D) 36
“In the case of the homeless in priority need it was not lawful, for the purposes of the duty to secure accommodation pursuant to s193 (2) of the Housing Act 1996, for a local housing authority, pending permanent re-housing, to leave those found to be homeless but not on the streets within the very accommodation found to be unsuitable for accommodation.”
WLR Daily, 8th February 2008
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 (Maloba) v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
Court of Appeal
“In concluding that an applicant who had become a British citizen in 1997 was not homeless because there was accommodation for him in Uganda, the housing authority had adopted too restrictive an approach.”
The Times, 16th January 2008
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
R (Maloba) v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
“On the proper construction of s 175(3) of the Housing Act 1985, the phrase ‘accommodation which it would be reasonable .. to continue to occupy’ was to be read as ‘to occupy or continue to occupy’. Such an interpretation avoided the creation of a distinction between a person with unfit accommodation available to him who was living in it and one who was not. Furthermore, the matters to be considered in deciding whether it was reasonable to expect an applicant to occupy accommodation available to him were not limited to the size and structural quality of the accommodation.”
WLR Daily, 5th December 2007
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.
Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council
Court of Appeal
“A shared residence order made by a family court in uncontested proceedings did not determine the question whether a parent in whose favour the order was made had a priority need for housing as a homeless person with dependent children who might reasonably be expected to reside with him.”
The Times, 19th November 2007
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
© Inner Temple Library 2025