Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Joshua Jackson (instructed by Hansen Palomares Solicitors) for the Claimant Mathew McDermott (instructed by the London Borough of Lambeth) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 18-19 October 2022 ____________________
This judgment was handed down remotely, the date for hand-down is deemed to be on 8 November 2022.
i) Ground 1: the Defendant (i) failed to carry out a lawful assessment of the Claimant and her family's housing needs and/ or (ii) to prepare a lawful personalised housing plan under s 189A(1) of the 1996 Act; and/ or (iii) failed to conduct a lawful review of the Claimant's housing needs under s 189A(9)-(11).
ii) Ground 2: the Defendant failed, in the discharge of its housing functions, to 'have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare' of the Claimant's children as required by s 11(2) Children Act 2004.
i) The authority must 'have regard to their assessment' under s 189A: ss 189B(3) and s 195(3). The Code of Guidance at paragraph 13.6 states that this duty 'will assist the authority with understanding the applicant's particular situation and tailoring the support it provides under the relief duty, both directly and through engaging relevant specialist services'.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.