Geoffrey Edwin Fletcher v The London Borough of Brent
Geoffrey Edwin Fletcher v The London Borough of Brent
- 2006
[2006] EWCA Civ 960, 7 July 2006. Concerns whether a former tenant was homeless within the Housing Act 1996 s175. Appeal by F against a decision that he was not homeless within s175 of the Act. F and his wife had occupied the property under a secure joint tenancy from B. F's wife left the property to reside in a refuge and F left for a period by an order made in family proceedings. After this was discharged F's wife gave notice to quit and vacated the property. F submitted a homelessness application which B refused on the basis that he had accommodation available to him at the property which was reasonable for him to occupy. A review of B's decision concluded that F was not homeless and this was upheld in the county court. "Held": appeal allowed. The review decision was legally flawed. F was not homeless if he had at the time of the review an entitlement to occupy (s175(1)(a)) or an express or implied licence to occupy (s175(1)(b)). On the evidence it was not possible to determine that F's interest under a licence (if any) meant that he was not homeless. The matter was remitted to the review officer to reconsider his decision.
FLETCHER V BRENT LBC
HOUSING ACT 1996 S175
NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST V ROOMUS
HARROW LBC V QAZI
HOUSING ACT 1996 S175 (1)(B)
HOUSING ACT 1996 S175 (1)(A)
HOUSING ACT 1996 S193
England and Wales--1543-
[2006] EWCA Civ 960, 7 July 2006. Concerns whether a former tenant was homeless within the Housing Act 1996 s175. Appeal by F against a decision that he was not homeless within s175 of the Act. F and his wife had occupied the property under a secure joint tenancy from B. F's wife left the property to reside in a refuge and F left for a period by an order made in family proceedings. After this was discharged F's wife gave notice to quit and vacated the property. F submitted a homelessness application which B refused on the basis that he had accommodation available to him at the property which was reasonable for him to occupy. A review of B's decision concluded that F was not homeless and this was upheld in the county court. "Held": appeal allowed. The review decision was legally flawed. F was not homeless if he had at the time of the review an entitlement to occupy (s175(1)(a)) or an express or implied licence to occupy (s175(1)(b)). On the evidence it was not possible to determine that F's interest under a licence (if any) meant that he was not homeless. The matter was remitted to the review officer to reconsider his decision.
FLETCHER V BRENT LBC
HOUSING ACT 1996 S175
NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST V ROOMUS
HARROW LBC V QAZI
HOUSING ACT 1996 S175 (1)(B)
HOUSING ACT 1996 S175 (1)(A)
HOUSING ACT 1996 S193
England and Wales--1543-