Is Hotak’s bite now worse than its bark? Sophie Bell & Satvir Sahota examine vulnerability decisions in homeless cases
- The judgments in AS v Westminster and II v Westminster provide useful guidance on how local authorities should be addressing the question of vulnerability post- Hotak and on potential grounds for appeal.
The landscape for assessing the vulnerability of homeless applicants was expected to change dramatically with the decision in Hotak v the London Borough of Southwark [2015] UKSC 30, [2015] 3 All ER 1053 in the Supreme Court in 2015. Celebration among those who advise homeless applicants was nevertheless short-lived. Local authorities were clearly of the view that they could continue to use all the tools and arguments previously at their disposal to avoid making findings of vulnerability. We highlight two recent appeals in the county court suggesting that the hopes of applicant lawyers were not misplaced. The judgments provide useful guidance on how local authorities should be addressing the question of vulnerability post-Hotak and on potential grounds for appeal.
Background
When an applicant makes a homeless application, a positive duty must be accepted where the
