A homeless applicant was found to be intentionally homeless for losing accommodation in a seaside hotel despite having been found to be in priority need because he had or could be expected to have children residing with him. They weren’t living with him or likely to be doing so at the time when he was offered the hotel accommodation so it was reaonable for him to occupy and he was intentionally homeless for losing it.
Cornerstone Barristers Article
Beach-v-S-Hams-DC-judgment-approved-for-hand-down-on-09.05.25.pdf