Griffin v City of Westminster [2004] EWCA Civ 108,CA

The claimant sought emergency rehousing saying that he was a vulnerable person within section 189. The court at first instance had overturned the rejection of his claim by the authority.
Held: The test set out in the statute was to be followed strictly. It asked whether, if he was left homeless he would be less able to fend for himself, so as to suffer some particluar harm. The words of the Homelessness Code were for guidance only and could not override the words of the Act. The Act did not ask whether harm was likely, but whether it would occur. The Act was not to be read down, and the appeal failed. The Secretray of State might wish to reconsider the words used in the Code of Guidance.
Kennedy LJ said: ‘The status of the code is clear from Section 182(1) of the Act. In exercising their functions local housing authorities must ‘have regard to’ the code, but if the code differs from the statute, as interpreted by this court, it is the statute which prevails.’
(Source Swarb.co.uk)

Bailii Transcript 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.