- Homelessness—the relevance of overcrowding to the question of ‘settled accommodation’ (Bullale v City of Westminster Council)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Local Government analysis: The Court of Appeal has held that the council had been wrong to conclude that severe overcrowding had meant that the applicant had not found ‘settled’ accommodation, and that she therefore had not ‘broken the chain of causation’ between a finding of ‘intentional’ homelessness in 2016, and a later homelessness application in 2018. Overcrowding is not determinative. Decision-makers must weigh it in the balance of factors for and against, and must explain why the overcrowding is relevant. The court also considered the extent to which it was bound by the earlier Court of Appeal authority in Doka v Southwark, in which the Supreme Court had refused permission to appeal in very unusual terms. Written by Nick Bano, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial