当前位置: X-MOL 学术Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Intentional homelessness and affordability of accommodation
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law Pub Date : 2019-09-10 , DOI: 10.1080/09649069.2019.1663021
Carla Reeson 1
Affiliation  

The Supreme Court has handed down the long-awaited decision in Samuels v Birmingham City Council [2019] UKSC 28; the latest in a swathe of judgments concerning the duties of local housing authorities in England to those who present to them as homeless under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996). When Ms Samuels presented as homeless to Birmingham City Council she was assessed under the main housing duty to secure accommodation. This is owed if the applicant is homeless, eligible for local authority assistance, was not homeless intentionally, and is in priority need (s.193 HA 1996). Samuels considered a key question that arises in the context of intentional homelessness: how should a local authority assess affordability when considering whether it was reasonable to have expected an applicant to stay in their accommodation? In seeking to answer this question with an objective assessment, the UKSC’s decision will have significant implications for assessments of ‘affordability’ elsewhere in the discharge of homelessness duties by Local Authorities.

中文翻译:

故意无家可归和住宿负担能力

最高法院在 Samuels v Birmingham City Council [2019] UKSC 28 案中作出了期待已久的裁决;根据 1996 年住房法 (HA 1996) 第 VII 部分,关于英格兰地方住房当局对无家可归者的职责的一系列判决是最新的。当 Samuels 女士向伯明翰市议会提出无家可归者时,她被评估为主要住房责任以确保住宿。如果申请人无家可归、有资格获得地方当局的援助、不是故意无家可归并且有优先需要(s.193 HA 1996)。Samuels 考虑了在故意无家可归的情况下出现的一个关键问题:地方当局在考虑期望申请人留在其住所是否合理时应如何评估可负担性?为了通过客观评估来回答这个问题,UKSC 的决定将对地方当局履行无家可归者职责的其他地方的“负担能力”评估产生重大影响。
更新日期:2019-09-10
down
wechat
bug