DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Non-motoring legal advice
*****************************************************
#Post#: 92161--------------------------------------------------
Re: Intentional Homelessness / s.202 Review / s.204 Appeal
By: CBankie Date: September 30, 2025, 7:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My friend does have long-term physical and mental health
conditions that bring the Equality Act into play. Their GP has
provided letters confirming that street homelessness would put
them at serious risk of harm.
That’s why the Public Sector Equality Duty (s.149 EA 2010) is
relevant. The council had a legal duty to have due regard to the
impact of its decision on a disabled person. Case law such as
Pieretti v Enfield [2010] EWCA Civ 1104 makes clear that the
PSED applies to individual homelessness decisions — councils
must properly investigate and demonstrate how disability factors
were weighed, not just state that they were “noted.”
In this case, the concern is that while the council briefly
referenced the Equality Act in the decision letter, it didn’t
show any rigorous analysis of how my friend’s health conditions
should have influenced whether intentional homelessness was the
right finding, or whether suspension from the housing register
was proportionate. That’s the gap we’re trying to test.
I should also say — I’m posting on my friend’s behalf because
they find this difficult to manage alone. The aim isn’t to argue
every point, but to make sure we understand how the law works in
practice and whether anything has been overlooked. Supportive
insights or shared experiences are really valued.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page