| Publisher Citation: | [2006] All ER (D) 115 (May) |
| Court: | Court of Appeal, Civil Division |
| Judge: | Mummery, Arden and Hughes LJJ |
| Representation | Sarah Hannett (instructed by Nalders, Truro) for the claimant. |
| Wayne Beglan (instructed by Penrith DC Legal Services) for the defendant. | |
| Judgment Dates: | 9 May 2006 |
Catchwords
Housing - Homeless person - Duty of housing authority to provide accommodation - Person becoming homeless intentionally - Finding by authority of intentional homelessness - Validity of finding - Whether local authority entitled to find claimant in occupation of premises - , s 190(1).
The Case
In determining whether a property was occupied, for the purposes of deciding whether a claimant was intentionally homeless, the right to possession was not enough, although it was a relevant consideration. Further, holding the keys and making representations as to occupancy were factors from which a decision-maker might infer that premises had been occupied.
If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.
Lexis®Library
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
