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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll