Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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
Queer(y)ing consummation: an empirical reflection on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 and the role of consummation
Alexander Maine, Lecturer in Law, Leicester Law School, University of LeicesterKeywords: Consummation – adultery – marriage – empirical research – LGBTQConsummation and...
A v A (Return Without Taking Parent) [2021] EWHC 1439 (Fam)
(Family Division, MacDonald J, 18 May 2021)Abduction – Application for return order under Hague Convention 1980 - Art 13(b) defence – Whether mother’s allegations against the father...
Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers
The Insurance Charities have released an update to the Domestic Abuse Toolkit for Employers.Employers have a duty of care and a legal responsibility to provide a safe and effective work...
Two-week rapid consultation launched on remote, hybrid and in-person family hearings
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has announced the launch of a two-week rapid consultation on remote, hybrid and in-person hearings in the family justice system and the...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
View all articles
Authors

HOUSING: R (Aweys and Others) v Birmingham City Council [2007] EWHC 52 (Admin)

Sep 29, 2018, 16:30 PM
Slug : r-aweys-and-others-v-birmingham-city-council-2007-ewhc-52-admin
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 26, 2007, 07:44 AM
Article ID : 85241

(Queens Bench Division (Administrative Court); Collins J; 26 January 2007)

In a number of cases involving families with large numbers of children living in severely crowded conditions, the court found there had been consistent failures by the local authority to deal with applications in accordance with the law. It was impermissible to advise a person threatened with homelessness by reason of overcrowding to wait until a court order was made or eviction occurred. 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. Equally it must be clear that the length of time before proper accommodation was found should be short. A period longer than 6 weeks would need clear justification. 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. A claim that the local authority had breached the families rights under Art 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 was arguable, although the families would have to show exceptional circumstances; much would depend on the court's view of the effect of the failure to provide suitable accommodation on the families, but the issue of damages remained open.

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