Priority for homeless client
R(Alam) v Tower Hamlets LBC  EWHC (Admin) 44
Lou Crisfield successfully supported her client Mr Alam when his local authority agreed that he was homeless but decided that he was not in priority need. The council placed his housing application in the lower “group 3” on their waiting list for social housing.
Mr Alam brought a judicial review against the council and Lou argued that Mr Alam should have been placed in “group 2” with households found to be homeless and in priority need.
A High Court judge agreed that he should have been placed in “group 2” because the relevant Housing Act required homeless people, regardless of whether or not they had a priority need, to be given “a reasonable preference” in any allocation scheme.
The contents of this article are for the purposes of general awareness only. They do not purport to constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this article was published. Readers should not act on the basis of the information included and should take appropriate professional advice upon their own particular circumstances.