case digest

'intentionally homeless'


Robson -v- Kyle and Carrick District Council 1993 GWD 1065 (Outer House)
The applicant had lived with her mother until 1988. In 1989 she obtaine council accommodation on her own. In October 1989, the applicant gave up her tenancy to go back to live with her mother. However, subsequently, the applicant and mother argued; and the applicant was asked to leave. The council determined the applicant 'intentionally homeless' (and as such they would have no obligation to make accommodation available to her). The council's decision was quashed by Lord Marnoch. What was relevant were the applicant's intentions and expectation when she moved back to her mother's house; she had reasonably anticipated a secure and settled life with her mother. Returning to her mother's house had broken 'the chain of causation' with the applicant previously giving up her tenancy - and as such she was not intentionally homeless.

Speck -v- Kyle and Carrick District Council 1993 GWD 1566 (Outer House)
The applicant was dismissed from his post as a resident hotel manager, an as such, lost his accommodation. The employers claimed the applicant had been dismissed for misconduct, which was denied by the applicant. The council preferred the employer's position and deemed the applicant 'intentionally homeless'.  Lord Prosser quashed the council's determination. The case was remitted back to the council to make proper enquiries as to whether the applicant had been guilty of 'any deliberate act or omission' such as to render him intentionally homeless.

W -v- Monklands District Council 1988 SC 329; 1988 SLT 847 (Outer House)
Ms W was a single homeless teenager, who was epiletic. She had stayed with his father until 16, at which time he stayed with his mother while attending college. Her father had said to her that if she went to stay with her mum, she would not get back into the house. She did not believe he was serious. The council accepted she had a priority need, but found her intentionally homeless. Lord Clyde quashed the council's decision and held that Mr W's action taken in genuine ignorance of her father's intent could not be regarded as a 'deliberate act'. Lord Clyde's judgment was upheld by the First Division of the Inner House.