Can a court lawfully order the parties to court proceedings to engage in a non-court based resolution process such as an internal complaints procedure operated by a local authority? If so, in what circumstances? These were the important issues explored by the Court of Appeal in Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council.
The Supreme Court in R (Imam) v London Borough of Croydon has unanimously held that general funding pressures are not an excuse for non-compliance with a local authority's duty under s193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to provide suitable accommodation to a homeless individual. However, the court should consider a local authority's resources and extent of its housing portfolio when deciding whether to grant a mandatory order rather than some other relief.
The issue of how local authorities deal with homeless 16–17-year-olds who do not want to be accommodated as ‘looked after children’ under s20 of the Children Act 1989 was recently raised again in R(W) v LB Lambeth. Joshua Swirsky acted for the local authority in the case.
Many tenants don't know who their landlord is. They may live in accommodation provided by an agent to a local authority via a chain of "supplier agreements". Supposedly these are designed to promote market efficiency. But usually they have the effect (intended or otherwise) of making it impossible to work out who is actually responsible for the tenant's living conditions.
Christopher McCarthy reviews the decision of the Court of Appeal in Baptie v The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. The case considers what form 'reasonable living expenses', as part of an affordability assessment to determine whether an applicant is homeless intentionally.
Jonathan Pennington Legh discusses the scope and aims of the Social Housing Regulation Bill which was introduced in parliament yesterday following its inclusion in the Queen’s Speech.
Clare Cullen considers the case of Croydon London Borough Council v Kalonga [2022] UKSC 7. The Supreme Court considered if, and how, a flexible tenancy can be ended during the fixed term.
In Global 100 Ltd v Jimenez and others [2022] UKUT 50 (LC), the Upper Tribunal decided that accommodation which is occupied by ‘property guardians’ constitutes a house in multiple occupation ‘HMO' meaning that it requires an HMO licence and serious consequences apply to the person who controls or manages the accommodation if no licence has been obtained.