21.39Pryce v Southwark LBC [2012] EWCA Civ 1572, (2012) 15 CCLR 731
The sole carer of British children had a right of residence in the UK that qualified her for homelessness assistanceZambrano carersZambrano carers:homelessnessZambrano carers:Zambrano carersZambrano carers
Facts: Ms Pryce was unlawfully present in the UK, but was the sole carer of her three young British children. The issue was whether Ms Pryce had a right of residence in the UK under the Zambrano principle, so as to qualify for homelessness assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.
Judgment: The county court judge had held not and Ms Pryce appealed. Shortly before the hearing in the Court of Appeal Southwark indicated a desire to concede the appeal and the Court of Appeal (Pill and Rimer LJJ, Burton J) approved the consent order and the agreed statement of reasons, on the basis that they appeared to be appropriate.
The agreed statement of the appellant and the local authority read as follows:
1. Article 20 … contains treaty rights which are directly applicable in the UK national legal order by virtue of section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 without the need for transposition into national law.
2. A person in respect of whom a refusal of a right of residence would be inconsistent with Article 20 … in accordance with the principles established by the EU in Ruiz Zambrano v ONEm C–34/09 is not a person subject to immigration control for the purposes of s185 Housing Act 1996 or s7 Immigration Act 1988.
3. For the purposes of the Appellant’s application for housing assistance, the Respondent (whose responsibility it is to make such a determination) has determined that the Appellant meets the requirements of the Zambrano principles.
4. The Appellant is such a person who derives a right of residence from the EU law and there being no issue as to habitual residence is eligible for assistance as homeless under s185(3) of the 1996 Act and the Homeless Regulations, regulation 6, as in force at all material times on 15 June 2011 onwards when she applied for assistance as homeless, including 30 September 2011 being the date of the review decision under appeal in these proceedings.
5. In the circumstances, the appeal ought to be allowed; the Order of HHJ Faber of 2 May 2012 ought to be set aside; and [the local authority’s] review decision of 30 September 2011 ought to be varied pursuant to s204(3) of the 1996 Act to a decision that the Appellant is eligible for assistance under Section 185 of the 1996 Act.
Albeit that the court had not heard contrary submissions as to the effect of Zambrano, the local authority’s concessions of fact and law appeared to be appropriate, though.