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. This points to suitability being primarily a matter of space and arrangement, though no doubt other matters (such as whether the occupant can afford the rent) may also be material. But there is no reason why temporary accommodation should ipso facto be unsuitable.

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.

It is intended to provide for the homeless a lifeline of last resort; not to enable them to make inroads into the local authority's waiting list of applicants for housing. Some inroads there probably are bound to be, but in the end the local authority will have to balance the priority needs of the homeless on the one hand, and the legitimate aspirations of those on their housing waiting list on the other hand.

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.

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. Without the damp course the house, when completed, is not fit for human habitation because of rising damp. I cannot conceive that Parliament could have intended that in those circumstances the builder would be free from any duty under sub-section (1).

In deciding whether the use in this case of each of the Properties is by the residents living together as a "single household" for the purposes of the 1987 Order, it is critical to examine whether (in the language of Nourse LJ) there is such relationship between the residents as provides a particular reason for their living in the same house. In my view there is lacking such a relationship in the case of the residents of the Properties.

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.