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.
Mr Wise QC and Mr Broach (instructed by Hopkin Murray Beskine Solicitors) for the Claimant Mr Beglan (instructed by Legal Services) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 28th and 29th July 2015 ____________________
The Claimant applied 'online' for accommodation in Ealing under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 (as amended) ('the Act') on 4 December 2014. Her application to join the Defendant's Housing Register was rejected in a 'pro forma' letter dated 8 th December 2014, the relevant part of which informed her that:
Although the reason for her ineligibility is unstated, it is clear that the operative fact was her not having been resident in the borough for five years. No indication was given as to whether consideration was given to the particular facts of her and her family's case or as to whether the exceptionality provision within the Defendant's policy, to which I shall refer later, may have applied to her or her children.
The six grounds advanced by the Claimant in support of her claim can be conveniently grouped under four main headings: -
The statutory code dealing with allocation of accommodation is contained in Part VI of the Act. The principal relevant provisions are sections 159, 160ZA, 166A and 169. They provide as follows:
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.