(d) the applicant provided the Council with all possible support and cooperation when it requested information before imposing a fine. In short, a man looked after his grandparents in Tilbury and lived there. You were a tenant of Thurrock Council. They`re dead. The city council told him they need a three-bedroom house. It was not mentioned in any rental agreement. The district judge seems to have thought that they were in the same category of vulnerability as Lord Neuberger at Pinnock [64] was described as follows: “… [T]he proposals put forward on behalf of the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission that proportionality will be a relevant subject, “with regard to detainees at risk of mental illness, physical or learning disabilities, ill health or fragility”, and that “the issue may also require the local authority to explain why , in such cases, it does not guarantee alternative housing.” I do not see a comparison between the respondent, his partner and his son, on the one hand, and those described in this passage, on the other. Moreover, as can be seen from this passage, the situation has ariset, in a situation where the municipality did not provide alternative accommodation. In this case, there is no indication that the Commission refused or would refuse the reintroduction of the respondent`s family.
Indeed, as Lord Neuberger pointed out to Corby V. [30], the fact that the respondent and his family have the right to be rehoused outweighs the section 8 defence. In addition, as the district judge himself noted, accommodation on the three-room property exceeds the housing needs of the sponsor`s family. The sympathy for the difficult situation of the respondent and his family, which is entirely understandable, cannot mask the remarkable effect of the district judge`s decision. This decision prevents the Council from recovering the property of persons to whom the Council has never granted the right to provide them and whose housing needs are less than those provided for by the property and gives these persons the right to remain unconstrained in time or otherwise, contrary to the legal legislative policy which limits the right of succession to secure tenancy contracts. It deprives the Council of its public right and duty to make administrative decisions on the property in connection with its housing stock. Indeed, the Court has taken for itself the power conferred on the Council to choose the most appropriate property for the many and diverse persons entitled to social housing.