Social Housing in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R (Weaver) v London and Quadrant Housing Trust
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 26 June 2008

    Reference to the termination of a tenancy brings me to a final point on this issue, which is that if the allocation of housing stock by LQHT is a public function, then it would in my view be wrong to separate out “management” decisions concerning the termination of a tenancy as acts of a purely private nature. It would be artificial to separate out the act of terminating a tenancy, or indeed other acts in the course of management of a property, from the act of granting a tenancy.

  • R (Weaver) v London and Quadrant Housing Trust
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 18 June 2009

    Third, it is only of limited significance that the function will be subject to the principles of judicial review. The purpose of attaching liability under section 6 is different to the purpose of subjecting a body to administrative law principles, and it cannot be assumed that because a body is subject to one set of rules it will therefore automatically be subject to the other.

  • R (Abdul Walud) v Tower Hamlets LBC
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 07 March 2002

    I agree with Stanley Burnton J, at first instance in this case (see (2001) 4 CCLR 455, at para 27), that there are several indications in the Act that the kind of accommodation originally envisaged was in a residential home or hostel. This is the power under which local authorities provided elderly and aged people's homes or arranged accommodation in such homes run by others.

    That duty is premised on an unmet need for 'care and attention' (a 'condition precedent', as this Court put it in the Westminster case, at p 93E). It is simply the means whereby the necessary care and attention can be made available if otherwise it will not (I do not understand this Court to have rejected that part of the local authority's argument in the Westminster case, at p 93B-D).

    In this case, Mr Mountain decided that the claimant did not have an unmet need for care and attention. He was undoubtedly entitled to reach that conclusion. Need is a relative concept which trained and experienced social workers are much better equipped to assess than are lawyers and courts provided that they act rationally.

    Had it been that the combination of the claimant's mental health and a severe housing problem gave rise to a need for care and attention, this claim would still have faced considerable difficulties. He would have had to show that the care and attention he required was not otherwise available to him.

    Where a local social services authority is making an assessment of need, it is good practice to consider whether the claimant may have a need for services provided by other authorities, in particular health and housing.

See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Forms
See all results