William Flack

Senior Associate Solicitor

E: william@matthewgold.co.uk

William joined Matthew Gold & Company in September 2019, to work in our Public Law department, covering for Clare Jennings on a part-time basis (while she is on maternity leave).

He joined Hanne & Co in 2016 to work as a consultant Solicitor in the Housing Law department and had previously been an equity partner in a specialist housing firm in Wandsworth. William has a huge amount of experience in complex housing cases and specialises in defending possession proceedings and homelessness cases. He strives tirelessly for the rights of all, particularly those with special needs and disabilities who find themselves in housing difficulties.

William has been involved in many high profile cases, many going all the way to the Court of Appeal. He is a robust litigator and goes the extra mile to get the right results.

William graduated from the London School of Economics and Political Sciences in 1986 and was admitted to the roll in 1991.

He is a member of the Housing Law Practitioners Association.

 

Some examples of cases that William has been involved with are:-

Shepping v Osada (1999) ‘Proceedings for possession’ means court proceedings, not the service of a notice seeking possession.

Mowan v LB Wandsworth (2000) A council tenant did not have a cause of action against the council landlord for their failure to deal with acts of nuisance on the part of their neighbour who was a tenant of the same council.

Stewart v Wandsworth (2001) This case determined which authorities were responsible for carrying out an assessment under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, where three different authorities disputed responsibility.

William v Wandsworth (2006) A local housing authority had been entitled to find that an applicant had made himself intentionally homeless, by making a deliberate decision not to use the monies available to him from a re-mortgage to pay the mortgage installments, which had led to the property being repossessed. A separate applicant had been intentionally homeless, by allowing the joint owner to sell the property and collect the full net proceeds of sale.

Wandsworth v Randall (2007) This case established that in succession cases the size of the household for the purposes of under occupation is determined at the date of the Court hearing.

Bubb v Wandsworth (2012) Homelessness applicants are not able to challenge findings of fact by Local Authorities despite the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights.

William Flack

Senior Associate Solicitor

E: william@matthewgold.co.uk

William joined Matthew Gold & Company in September 2019, to work in our Public Law department, covering for Clare Jennings on a part-time basis (while she is on maternity leave). 

He joined Hanne & Co in 2016 to work as a consultant Solicitor in the Housing Law department and had previously been an equity partner in a specialist housing firm in Wandsworth. William has a huge amount of experience in complex housing cases and specialises in defending possession proceedings and homelessness cases. He strives tirelessly for the rights of all, particularly those with special needs and disabilities who find themselves in housing difficulties.

William has been involved in many high profile cases, many going all the way to the Court of Appeal. He is a robust litigator and goes the extra mile to get the right results.

William graduated from the London School of Economics and Political Sciences in 1986 and was admitted to the roll in 1991.

He is a member of the Housing Law Practitioners Association.

Some examples of cases that William has been involved with are:-

Shepping v Osada (1999) ‘Proceedings for possession’ means court proceedings, not the service of a notice seeking possession.

Mowan v LB Wandsworth (2000) A council tenant did not have a cause of action against the council landlord for their failure to deal with acts of nuisance on the part of their neighbour who was a tenant of the same council.

Stewart v Wandsworth (2001) This case determined which authorities were responsible for carrying out an assessment under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, where three different authorities disputed responsibility.

William v Wandsworth (2006) A local housing authority had been entitled to find that an applicant had made himself intentionally homeless, by making a deliberate decision not to use the monies available to him from a re-mortgage to pay the mortgage installments, which had led to the property being repossessed. A separate applicant had been intentionally homeless, by allowing the joint owner to sell the property and collect the full net proceeds of sale.

Wandsworth v Randall (2007) This case established that in succession cases the size of the household for the purposes of under occupation is determined at the date of the Court hearing.

Bubb v Wandsworth (2012) Homelessness applicants are not able to challenge findings of fact by Local Authorities despite the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights.