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
JM v RM [2021] EWHC 315 (Fam)
(Family Division, Mostyn J, 22 February 2021)Abduction – Wrongful retention – Hague Convention application – Mother decided not to return to Australia with children – COVID 19...
Re A (A Child) (Hague Convention 1980: Set Aside) [2021] EWCA Civ 194
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Moylan, Asplin LJJ, Hayden J, 23 February 2021)Abduction – Hague Convention 1980 – Return order made – Mother successfully applied to set aside due...
Disabled women more than twice as likely to experience domestic abuse
The latest data from the Office of National Statistics shows that, in the year ending March 2020, around 1 in 7 (14.3%) disabled people aged 16 to 59 years experienced any form of domestic abuse in...
The President of the Family Division endorses Public Law Working Group report
The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has published a message from the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, in which the President endorses the publication of the President’s...
HMCTS updates online divorce services guidance
HM Courts and Tribunals Service have recently updated the online divorce services guidance with the addition of guides for deemed and dispensed service applications, alternative service...
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