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
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....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
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...
Focusing on behaviour and attitudes of separating parents
I am sure that if this year's Family Law Awards were an in-person event as usual, rather than this year’s virtual occasion, much of the chatter among family law professionals would be...
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