Our client initially approached us as he, his wife, and three young children were living in a private rented studio flat, which only had sufficient space for two people and was overcrowded. In addition to overcrowding, there was also severe disrepair in the property including mould, damp and a rat infestation. Our client was extremely vulnerable due to complex mental and physical health conditions. He is receiving ongoing hospital care. Remaining in the property was having a hugely detrimental impact on his health.
Our client’s landlord recognised that the property was not suitable due to the overcrowding. However, they were not willing to take steps to evict the client, due to the anticipated cost to them. In addition, the Local Authority was aware of the overcrowding but had stated that this case was not higher than the standard level of overcrowding in the area.
We wrote to the Local Authority to request the file so that we could investigate what steps had been taken in this case. We discovered that our client had made a homeless application months ago that had been rejected. Due to our client’s vulnerabilities, he had not sought legal help with this decision
We therefore wrote to the Local Authority to request an out of time review. This request was rejected. We therefore took steps to make a fresh homeless application, including a letter of support outlining why our client was entitled to homeless assistance. A fresh homeless application was accepted.
Our client was awarded the Relief Duty but he was not provided with temporary accommodation, as the council stated that there was no suitable lets available. We then made additional provided further evidence which prompted the council to provide temporary accommodation.
Our client was subsequently awarded the main housing duty.
This client was represented by Joy Gribbin.
