Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles
Authors

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 :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from