Housing

Homeless persons - priority need - 17-year-old wife in full-time education not 'dependent child' living with husbandHackney London Borough Council v Ekinci: CA (Pill, Arden and Dyson LJJ): 24 May 2001The applicant's wife was 17 years old, in full-time education and dependent on her husband.

They were homeless.The local authority refused to provide interim accommodation on the ground that the applicant did not have a priority need within the meaning of section 189 of the Housing Act 1996.The applicant's appeal was upheld by the judge in the county court, who held that the wife was a dependent child within the meaning of section 189(1(b) of the Act.

The local authority appealed.Ranjit Bhose (instructed by Hackney Legal Services) for the local authority.

Robert Latham (instructed by Harter & Loveless) for the applicant.Held, allowing the appeal, that, although under section 189(1)(b) of the 1996 Act those having a priority need included 'a person with whom dependent children reside' and that while there was no definition of 'children' in the Act the secretary of state's code of guidance issued to housing authorities in December 1996 suggested that children aged 16 to 18 in full-time education were included, in the context of the 1996 Act the priority created in section 189(1)(b) was based on the parent/child relationship and could not cover an applicant whose dependent spouse happened to come within the definition suggested in the code of guidance.