'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.