Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

HOUSING: Birmingham City Council v Aweys and Others

Sep 29, 2018, 16:13 PM
Slug : birmingham-city-council-v-aweys-and-others
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 7, 2008, 10:34 AM
Article ID : 85041

(Court of Appeal; Ward, Arden and Smith LJJ; 7 February 2008)

Hearing a number of judicial review cases involving families with large numbers of children living in severely crowded conditions, the judge found there had been consistent failures by the local authority to deal with applications in accordance with the law. The judge held that people who were homeless because their current home provided unsuitable accommodation were clearly in temporary accommodation, and should not be given a lesser priority by the council than people who were in the council's designated 'temporary' accommodation; further, while families might sometimes prefer to remain in unsuitable accommodation for a short time rather than move to temporary accommodation, councils must recognise that it was a breach of their duty to require them to do so.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the local housing authority's appeal: once the local housing association was satisfied that it was not reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy their accommodation, that applicant was to be treated as being without accommodation. There was no justification for distinguishing between 'street' homeless and the homeless at home.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from