For more than 30 years, we have been assisting local authorities, registered providers of social housing and individuals in cases involving homelessness, allocations and judicial review.
Our homelessness work includes advising and representing clients in appeals involving eligibility, priority need, homelessness, intentional homelessness and local connection. We have provided clients with advice and seminars on the impact of the Homeless Reduction Act 2017.
We have extensive experience of challenging and defending policies, such as housing allocation schemes and gypsy and traveller site allocation policies.
Our homelessness, allocations and judicial review cases include:
- LB v Tower Hamlets LBC  EWCA Civ 439 (CA): (intentional homelessness and rent arrears)
- Tower Hamlets LBC v Ahmed  HLR 16 (CA): (exercise of discretion to extend time to bring a homelessness appeal)
- R (Idolo) v Bromley LBC  EWHC 860: (Admin): (whether accommodation was provided under s.20 Children Act 1989 or Part VII, Housing Act 1996)
- R(McDonagh) v Newport CC  EWHC 3886 (Admin): (lawfulness of Newport’s Gypsy and Traveller Site allocation policy)
- R(MIV & ORS) v Newham LBC  EWHC (Admin): (the rights of a disabled child under Art.8 ECHR had not been infringed by a local authority even though his family had been housing in unsuitable accommodation for 8 months)
- R (Kensington & Chelsea RBC) v Ealing LBC  HLR 13 (Admin): ( the decision in R v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, Ex p O’Brian(1985) 84 LGR 202 is no longer good law under Housing Act 1996)
- R (JS & Others) v Sec of State for Work & Pensions  HLR 21 (SC): (Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit) Regulations 2012 were not incompatible with Art.14, ECHR)
- Johnston v Westminster  HLR 714 (CA): (council’s decision to find an applicant not homeless, on the basis that another authority might offer him accommodation, was unlawful)