In R (Idolo) v Bromley LBC it was held that the Council had not failed in its duties under the Care Act 2014, nor breached its positive obligations under ECHR Article 8,  notwithstanding delay in rehousing a disabled resident into accommodation that was suitably adapted or adaptable. Rehousing needs being duly identified through the Care Act route could not shortcut the detailed system of balanced priorities under the allocation and homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1996 and the Council’s lawful policies and scheme. The Court also made observations about human rights damages claims.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 16th, 2020 at 9:30 am and is filed under Housing. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.