Unsuitable Housing in UK Law

I would therefore hold that the duty of the local housing authority to an unintentionally homeless person in priority need under section 65(2) is simply to secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation. Otherwise it seems to me that the term for which the accommodation is provided is a matter for the council to decide.

As a matter of the ordinary usage of English that which requires repair is in a condition worse than it was at some earlier time.

Thus, supposing that the owner of a plot of land instructs a builder to erect a dwelling-house on a plot. The builder erects the house but fails to include a damp course. I cannot conceive that Parliament could have intended that in those circumstances the builder would be free from any duty under sub-section (1). And what, I ask forensically, in those circumstances would be the need for the exception (and the exception to the exception) under sub-section (2)?

In the vast majority of cases, the making of the application will mean that it is difficult if not impossible for the Council not to believe that the applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness. If it is apparent from what is said by an applicant (for there is no requirement that an application be in writing) or from anything in writing that he may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, the duty is triggered.

This can be encapsulated in the requirement that the scheme in question has a mechanism for identifying those with the greatest need and ensuring that so far as possible and subject to reasonable countervailing factors (for example, past failure to pay rent et cetera) they are given priority.

On those facts and the terms of Section 12 (2) of the 1936 Act and the terms of the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney's Regulation, Mr Mercer, for the Defendant tenant, has raised the following ingenious argument; He says the rent cannot be increased under the provisions of Section 23 (1) unless the dwelling-house, besides being in good repair, is reasonably fit for occupation.

By the time the s 16 notice was served the Claimant had failed to pay the proper fee and was accordingly liable to prosecution. The HMO licensing regime established by Parliament in the 2004 Act clearly requires local housing authorities to have proper powers of inspection and enforcement, and a s 16 notice is an appropriate means of obtaining information with a view to enforcement.