header-logo header-logo

02 August 2018 / Brooke Lyne
Issue: 7804 / Categories: Features , Housing , Mental health
printer mail-detail

Where to next?

nlj_7804_lyne

​The law in relation to those lacking capacity has undergone radical change: is the Begum case still fit for purpose? Brooke Lyne investigates

  • Since the decision in the Begum case in 1993, there has been a huge shift in the way the law treats those lacking mental capacity.
  • In WB v W District Council the Court of Appeal was forced to consider whether the Begum principles were still relevant.

Under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996), local authorities have a duty to secure accommodation for those who are eligible, in priority need and not intentionally homeless. There are a number of categories of ‘priority need’ but for current purposes a person who is ‘vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason’ has a priority need.

The Begum case

The starting point when considering mental capacity in homelessness law is the case of Begum (reported as R v Oldham Metropolitan Council ex parte Garlick [1993] AC 509, (1993) 25 HLR 319,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Slater Heelis—Charlotte Beck

Partner and Manchester office lead appointed head of family

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

Civil Justice Council—Nigel Teasdale

DWF insurance services director appointed to Civil Justice Council

R3—Jodie Wildridge

R3—Jodie Wildridge

Kings Chambers barrister appointed chair of R3 Yorkshire

NEWS

The abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll