- 'It's Been in the Family For Years' is No Argument26th Jul 2010
- Driving: Mobile Phone, No - Dictaphone, Yes19th Jul 2010
- 'Toxic Sofa' Victims Win Compensation12th Jul 2010
- Canoe Fraudsters Must Repay Nearly £600,0006th Jul 2010
- In Brief - HMRC to Name and Shame Tax Dodgers28th Jun 2010
- Who Chooses the Executor?14th Jun 2010
- Chef Entitled to Second Helping of Justice7th Jun 2010
- Court Agrees to Reverse Settlement Error2nd Jun 2010
- Privacy Cases Will Be Dealt With On Their Facts25th May 2010
- Smoker Loses Out in Asbestos Settlement18th May 2010
- Man Wins Planning Battle Over House Disguised as a Barn12th May 2010
- Sikh’s Widow Awarded £415,000 for Egg Allergy Death5th May 2010
- General Intention Cannot Preserve Will27th Apr 2010
- Car Turning Area Creates Right Over Property14th Apr 2010
- iPod Deafness is User's Fault30th Mar 2010
- Summary of Budget Changes for Individuals25th Mar 2010
- Compensation for Honeymoon Ruined by Dysentery15th Mar 2010
- Mercy Killing is Not the Same as Assisted Suicide8th Mar 2010
- Husband Ordered Out of Ancestral Home23rd Feb 2010
- Verbal Will Directs £1/2 Million to Aunt27th Jan 2010
- £140,000 Mesothelioma Payout for Grandfather22nd Jan 2010
- Will Writer in the Dock15th Jan 2010
- Will Valid if Testator Had Capacity When it Was Drafted6th Jan 2010
- European Inheritance Law Overhaul Proposed23rd Dec 2009
- Supervision Failure Costs Council14th Dec 2009
- £240,000 for Holidaymaker Poisoned by Worm9th Dec 2009
- Ward & Rider Achieve Lexcel and Bronze IIP Accreditation1st Dec 2009
- Bank Charges Decision 27th Nov 2009
- Funding the First Step On the Ladder23rd Nov 2009
- Nightjack 'Outing' Bodes ill for Bloggers 18th Nov 2009
- When Equal Shares Change9th Nov 2009
- Executor With Hand in Till Jailed3rd Nov 2009
- Asbestos Damages for Widower26th Oct 2009
- Deskbound Worker Wins Compensation For Blood Clot19th Oct 2009
- Don’t Get Angry With the Council!12th Oct 2009
- Family Court Protects Children From Media Intrusion5th Oct 2009
- Pensions Case Moves to Europe23rd Sep 2009
- Estate Property - HMRC Recommend Three Valuations23rd Sep 2009
- Judge Uses Discretion in Contact Proceedings Case16th Sep 2009
- Past Exposure to Noise Warrants Compensation8th Sep 2009
- What Happens if I Don't Make a Will?28th Aug 2009
- Be Careful What You Claim For19th Aug 2009
- Swine Flu - Guidance for Employers10th Aug 2009
- Child Maintenance Rule Changes7th Aug 2009
- Stay Where You Are!4th Aug 2009
- PreNuptial Agreements - Parliament Must Act if Law to Change29th Jul 2009
- Easements - What They Mean at the Time22nd Jul 2009
- £10,000 for Vibration Injury14th Jul 2009
- Shared Residence Does Not Create Priority Housing Need13th Jul 2009
- Planning Permission is Only Part of the Story10th Jul 2009
- Risk Minimisation Necessary, Says Court6th Jul 2009
- Executors be Warned2nd Jul 2009
- Delayed Lump Sum Payments on Divorce1st Jul 2009
- E-Conveyancing - Where Are We Now?29th Jun 2009
- Cyclist Riding Without Helmet Awarded Full Compensation10th Jun 2009
- Making the Boundaries Clear10th Jun 2009
- Credit Crunch - Divorce Settlements in the Spotlight10th Jun 2009
- New Website Goes Live!27th May 2009
Shared Residence Does Not Create Priority Housing Need
When the court makes a shared residence order relating to the children of a divorced couple and one of the couple is homeless, does that then make that parent a 'priority need' case for social housing?
The House of Lords recently considered this question and concluded that, in such circumstances, the answer is 'no'.
The case arose when a father was ordered to leave the family home but a shared residence order was made in respect of three of the couple's children. The order stipulated that the children should spend alternate weekends and half of their school holidays with each parent.
The father, who was homeless, argued that this made him a priority case for social housing on the ground that he was a person 'with whom dependent children ... might reasonably be expected to reside'.
In the view of the Council, it could not be expected to provide a second home for the family, despite the expressed view of the court that it was in the interests of the children to have two homes. There was a wider social policy issue and it could not allocate its housing resources on the basis of the decisions of the family court.
The Lords concluded that to determine the allocation of a scarce resource such as housing on the basis proposed would not be a rational social policy and that Parliament could not have intended such an approach when framing the legislation.
Custody of children and the need to have a family home are major issues on family break-up. Whether you live in owned or rented housing, good legal advice is essential.




















