'priority
need'
Hoolaghan
-v- Motherwell District Council 1994 GWD 31-1871 (Outer House)
The applicant had
been staying at a drug rehabilitation centre. He was single man of 26
years of age. The applicant claimed he was 'vulnerable'
because without accommodation his drug
condition could
relapse. He also claimed that as a homosexual he had been victimised
by homophobics. The local social work department supported his
claims. The council said that the applicant was typical of single
homeless people; and that he did not have a priority need. Lord
Osborne dismissed the applicant's petition - the council's
assessment of what was 'average or normal' in respect of homeless
persons was not a
matter for the court generally; the council's decision could
only be quashed if it were peverse, irrational or 'Wednesbury' unreasonable.
Kelly
-v- Monklands District Council 1985 SLT 165 (Outer House)
A 16 year old made
an application after she left home due to assaults by her father. She
had no money. The council said she was not 'vulnerable'
and therefore had no priority need in law. Lord Ross held that the
council had erred in law: to demonstrate that an applicant was 'vulnerable',
it was suffcient to
show that she was less able to fend for herself,
giving rise to a risk of harm, sexual or financial exploitation. The
council's decision was not Wednesdbury reasonable (i.e. no reasonable
local authority could have reached it) and was quashed.
Wilson
-v- Nithsdale District Council 1992 SLT 1131 (Outer House)
A single women had
been excluded from her parental home, had been living in transient
accommodation and had been subject to a sexual assault. She applied
to the council for accommodation and was informed she did not have a
priority need. No decisions were given for that reason. The applicant
had said she was in priority
need for
an 'other special reason'
(section 25, Housing (Scotland) Act 1987). Lord Prosser (considering
R -v- Waveney DC ex. p. Bowers (1982) 4 HLR 118) held
that vulnerability was to be measured by
comparing the position of the applicant in the housing market with
others: (at p.1134) "The
comparison must, in my view, be with some assumed average or normal
or run-of-the-mill homeless person. But if there is a lesser ability
to fend for oneself, against that comparison, in a housing context,
so that injury or detriment
would result when an ordinary homeless person would be able to cope
without harmful effects, then in my opinion, vulnerability for
special reason is established for the purposes of the Act; and
nothing more special (far less anything odd or exceptional) is required".
R
-v- Waveney DC ex parte Bowers [1982] 3 All ER 727; (1982) 4 HLR
118, CA
Mr Bowers had
suffered severe head injuries; he was an alcoholic and aged 59. On
discharge from hospital he applied as homeless. The council said he
did not have a priority need,
although a social worker had said he was vulnerable at certain times
and needed some supervision. The Court of Appeal held that although
his alcoholism
would not in itself give him a priority need, his brain injuries (an 'other
special reason') had
increased his vulnerability and as such he had priority
need.