LB v London Borough of Tower Hamlets

LB v London Borough of Tower Hamlets

The reviewing officer lawfully considered all relevant circumstances, including events up to the date of review, and was entitled to conclude that it was reasonable for the appellant to continue to occupy her former accommodation. There was insufficient evidence that continued occupation would probably have led to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: LB; Respondent: London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Intentional Homelessness, Domestic Violence, Judicial Review Standard, Reasonableness of Occupation
Housing Law Administrative Law Intentional Homelessness Domestic Violence Judicial Review Standard Reasonableness of Occupation

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LB

Appellant

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reviewing officer erred in law in upholding the decision that the appellant was intentionally homeless under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the reviewing officer properly considered the probability of domestic violence and the reasonableness of continued occupation under sections 191 and 177 of the Housing Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The reviewing officer lawfully considered all relevant circumstances, including events up to the date of review, and was entitled to conclude that it was reasonable for the appellant to continue to occupy her former accommodation. There was insufficient evidence that continued occupation would probably have led to domestic violence, and the appellant’s homelessness was intentional due to non-payment of rent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed