housing – Page 91 – Current Awareness

Bubb v Wandsworth London Borough Council – WLR Daily

Posted November 11th, 2011 in appeals, homelessness, housing, judicial review, law reports, local government by tracey

Bubb v Wandsworth London Borough Council: [2011] EWCA Civ 1285; [2011] WLR (D) 323

“A county court judge hearing an appeal on a point of law under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996, against a review of whether a local housing authority owed a duty to a homeless person under the 1996 Act, had no jurisdiction to find the relevant primary facts for himself. The judge’s function was to consider whether the reviewing officer’s decision should be quashed on judicial review grounds.”

WLR Daily, 9th November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Mitu v Camden London Borough Council – WLR Daily

Posted November 3rd, 2011 in appeals, homelessness, housing, law reports, local government by sally

Mitu v Camden London Borough Council [2011] EWCA Civ 1249; [2011] WLR (D) 310

“Where a local authority, having decided that an applicant was intentionally homeless and not in priority need, decided on review of the application that the applicant’s homelessness was not intentional, it had a duty by section 192(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to provide or arrange for the provision of advice and assistance, and a discretion by section 192(3) of the 1996 Act to provide accommodation. Failure to consider the exercise of that discretionary power, if it affected the fairness of the decision, was a procedural deficiency requiring the local authority to give the applicant notice of its intended decision and allow him to make further representations either orally or in writing.”

WLR Daily, 1st November 2011

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Another cuts challenge fails: Changes to housing benefit scheme is lawful – UK Human Rights Blog

Posted October 17th, 2011 in benefits, equality, housing, news by sally

“On 13 October 2011 Mr Justice Supperstone in the High Court held that changes to rules for calculating housing benefit were lawful and in particular did not breach equality legislation.”