Vulnerability - advanced property Flashcards
Hotak [2015] UKSC 30
meaning of vulnerability under the housing Act 1996
As is often the case when the Court overturns established case law, a number of residual issues are left, to be addressed in future cases. In this instance, they include:
what does ‘significantly’ more vulnerable mean;
how are LHAs to judge the vulnerability of an ‘ordinary person’; and
to what extent can LHAs take into account third party support, such as charitable support, that is available to all homeless persons, including ordinary persons when homeless?
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Mr Kanu’s appeal (though dismissing his claim based on the PSED); unanimously dismissed Mr Johnson’s appeal (notwithstanding the flaws in his assessment, he had not been found to be vulnerable on one of the grounds identified in section 189(1)(c)); and dismissed Mr Hotak’s appeal (with Lady Hale dissenting
In summary, the answers given by the Supreme Court were
:
Vulnerability is a comparative concept and therefore involved an exercise in relativity.
1. The correct comparator is not an ordinary homeless person but an ordinary person if made homeless.
2. the relevant test is whether the applicant would be ‘significantly more vulnerable if homeless than an ordinary person.’
3. The LHA is required to pay close attention to the particular circumstances of the applicant in all vulnerability cases, but in cases where the Equality Act 2010 applies, the decision maker is required to focus sharply on the effects of disability on the applicant.
4. The LHA can take into account the third party support available to an applicant from any source, including family members, provided it is satisfied the support will be available to the applicant on a consistent and predictable basis
Under s. 188 of the Housing Act 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’) local authorities have a duty to secure that accommodation is made available for applicants who are homeless and have priority need. Priority need is defined in section 189(1) of the 1996 Act and includes at paragraph (c) persons who are
vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason, or with whom such a person resides or might reasonably be expected to reside.
The Appellants applied for accommodation on the basis that they had priority need. The First Appellant has very significant learning difficulties and symptoms of depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). He is cared for by his brother. Southwark Borough Council refused his application on the grounds that, if homeless, he would be provided with the necessary support by his brother. The Second Appellant has multiple physical problems as well as psychotic symptoms and suicidal ideation. He was deemed by Southwark not to be in priority need because he would not be at a greater risk of injury or detriment than an ordinary street homeless person due to the ability of his wife and son to fend for the whole household. The Third Appellant claimed to be vulnerable because he had become addicted to heroin while in prison and was in poor physical and mental health. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council found that he was not in priority need on the basis that he would not be less able to fend for himself than an ordinary homeless person.
Three issues arose in this case:
- Does the assessment of whether an applicant is vulnerable for the purposes of s. 189(1)(c) of the 1996 Act involve an exercise in comparability, and, if so, by reference to which group of people is vulnerability to be determined?
- When assessing vulnerability, is it permissible to take into account the support which would be provided by a family member to an applicant if he were homeless?
- What effect, if any, does the public sector equality duty under s. 149 of the Equality Act 2010 have on the determination of priority need under the 1996 Act in the case of an applicant with a disability or any other protected characteristic?
Denton [2007] EWCA Civ 623
meaning of voluntary homeless under the housing act
The Court of Appeal rejected Denton’s claim . The council had been entitled to find that the cause of his homelessness was his own bad behaviour. His mother’s “house rules” had not been unreasonable and, accordingly, it would have been reasonable for him to have continued to live at home and complied with those rules.
Mr Denton was aged 20 and lived in the parental home. After warnings about his bad behaviour, his mother excluded him on account of his rudeness and his use of drugs in her home. On his homelessness application, the council found that he had become homeless intentionally.
