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

HOUSING: Muse v Brent London Borough Council [2008] EWCA Civ 1447

Sep 29, 2018, 17:36 PM
Slug : muse-v-brent-london-borough-council-2008-ewca-civ-1447
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 19, 2008, 08:36 AM
Article ID : 88651

(Court of Appeal; Pill, Arden and Aikens LJJ; 19 December 2008)

The mother and her family sought accommodation from the housing authority. The authority secured temporary accommodation for the family, however, as the family grew, that accommodation became overcrowded and therefore unsuitable. The housing authority then offered different, suitable, temporary accommodation, warning the mother that refusal could lead to termination of her status as homeless, but the mother refused to move, preferring to stay in the overcrowded accommodation. The housing authority argued that because of the mother's refusal of a offer of accommodation, its duty to the mother to provide accommodation was now discharged, that they were entitled to terminate her current temporary accommodation and that her homeless application would be closed.

Although a harsh conclusion, the housing authority was correct. Where there was a great shortage of permanent accommodation, an applicant might spend many years in temporary accommodation. Unless Housing Act 1996, s 193, applied, there was no statutory provision for a fresh application to be made if the personal circumstances of the applicant changed. If a change made temporary accommodation unsuitable, the duty of the housing authority was to find fresh accommodation that was suitable. Under s 193(5) if an applicant refused an offer of accommodation believed by the housing authority to be suitable, and the authority had warned the applicant of the possible consequences of refusal, the authority's duty to house the applicant came to an end.

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