Archive for June, 2009

Thanks to Ilegal‘s excellent i-alert. You can view to the response HERE. Happy reading!


Read Full Post »

If you missed it watch it HERE. It’s worth a watch, whether to give to beggars who may also be street homeless is a controversial issue and the thoughts of ‘should I have given’ always pops up in House’s mind every time House passes such a person.

Next episode tomorrow, 25th June.

Read Full Post »

It seems the big cheeses in West Sussex have decided that the CLAN is to go ahead afterall with a planned start date of 1 April 2010, quite an amusing start date really.

Anyhow tendering due to begin in September and to be concluded by Christmas.

That’s the plan anyhow…

Read Full Post »

Duncan Lewis and Co

Interesting article on Mr Flack’s blog about Duncan Lewis and Co. Worth a look for sure.

Read Full Post »

House has recently had a few ‘restricted persons’ cases.

Habitual residency, as mentioned in paragraph 4,  is never really an issue. However House has a query. Can a dependent child with an expired 6 month entry visa be habitually resident and therefore confer a priority need onto their parent whom is habitually resident?

Immigration is not for House! nor is housing really.

Read Full Post »

West Sussex is having a bit of trouble with its CLAN. The draft spec was out in December 2008 with a few to having the final spec out in April and then have the CLAN up and running sometime around Sep / Oct 2009.

It is rumoured that the LA’s involved, of which there are many, aren’t to happy with the LSC and that this has meant that the final spec still isn’t out. A final make or break meeting is expected this Monday, 8th June,  but even then the start date for the CLAN isn’t expected till as late as April 2010.

House will attempt to do some digging as to what exactly the LSC and LA’s are fighting over!

It is expected that there will be one bidder for the CLAN.

House wonders if the LSC should rearrange the words ‘Dead flogging a horse’.

Read Full Post »

sec 202 review question

Apologies for what might be a daft question but let’s suppose that a client who has a dependent child goes to a LA and makes a homeless approach. Let’s just suppose that the LA don’t do any enquiries into whether it’s a dependent child and just decide it isn’t and so make a snap 184 decision which says the client has no priority need for accommodation. The decision to any right minded LA would one hope make no sense.

Now if the client requests a review and then finds let’s say an AST before the review is complete can the LA find the client not homeless on review or would the utter lack of enquiries be considered unlawful and so they can’t? Can the LA in effect take advantage of their complete lack of even basic enquiries?

Does anyone have any good links to cases that might assist House with his confusion!?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »