Higher rent not justified by son’s income surcharge

ATA/361/1998Cour de justice / Chambre administrative9 juin 1998Dismissed

Extrait par Omnilex

Résumé Omnilex

The appellant argued that his son’s income, which would have triggered a surcharge, created a major inconvenience justifying a move to a more expensive housing unit. The court held that this circumstance was not sufficiently serious to meet the legal threshold. The request was therefore dismissed.

Regeste Omnilex

LGL.39; social housing; major inconvenience as a condition for relocation to a more expensive dwelling. The mere fact that a household member earns an income that would trigger a surcharge does not, by itself, constitute a sufficiently serious inconvenience to justify transfer to a costlier apartment. The inconvenience must reach a significant degree under the applicable housing rules; a purely financial consequence of this kind is insufficient.

Texte intégral

Descripteurs

LOGEMENT; ALLOCATION DE LOGEMENT; LOGEMENT SOCIAL; INCONVENIENT MAJEUR; IEA

Normes

LGL.39

Résumé

Le fait que le fils du recourant réalise un salaire qui aurait entraîné la perception d'une surtaxe ne constitue pas un inconvénient suffisamment important pour justifier un déménagement dans un logement plus cher.

Mots-clés

housingsocial housingsurchargemajor inconveniencerelocation

Extrait par Omnilex

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Omnilex

Question juridique clé

Whether the son’s income causing a surcharge justified authorizing a move to a more expensive social housing unit.

Solution extraite

No. The son’s salary, even if it would have led to a surcharge, did not amount to a sufficiently serious inconvenience to justify moving to a more expensive dwelling.

Motifs extraits

The court considered that the financial consequence linked to the son’s income was not important enough, in the circumstances, to qualify as a major inconvenience within the meaning of the applicable housing rule.

Higher rent not justified by son’s income surchargeGénéré par IA