Ciftci v London Borough of Haringey [2021] EWCA Civ 1772 (26 November 2021)

Ciftci v London Borough of Haringey [2021] EWCA Civ 1772 (26 November 2021)

The reviewing officer was entitled to conclude, on the evidence and after sufficient inquiry, that Ms Ciftci was intentionally homeless because she deliberately gave up settled accommodation in Switzerland without adequate investigation or planning for future accommodation or employment in the UK, and was not unaware of any relevant fact relating to her homelessness.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 1772
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Songul Ciftci; Defendant/respondent: The Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Haringey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal (housing/administrative) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Intentional Homelessness, Statutory Duties of Local Authorities, Procedural Fairness, Duty to Inquire, Appeals on Point of Law
Housing Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Intentional Homelessness Statutory Duties of Local Authorities Procedural Fairness Duty to Inquire Appeals on Point of Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Songul Ciftci

Claimant/appellant

The Mayor and Burgesses of London Borough of Haringey

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (housing/administrative) / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local authority was entitled to conclude the appellant was intentionally homeless under Housing Act 1996 section 191
  2. 2 Whether the authority made sufficient inquiries into the reasons for homelessness
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was unaware of a relevant fact and acted in good faith under section 191(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The reviewing officer was entitled to conclude, on the evidence and after sufficient inquiry, that Ms Ciftci was intentionally homeless because she deliberately gave up settled accommodation in Switzerland without adequate investigation or planning for future accommodation or employment in the UK, and was not unaware of any relevant fact relating to her homelessness.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed