Riccardo has experience of the whole range of housing law matters at first instance and on appeal. He is frequently instructed in claims for possession and subsequent applications for occupiers' eviction; claims relating to tenancy deposits, disrepair, and unlawful eviction; and claims including allegations of discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010. He regularly appears before High Court, Circuit, and District judges.
He is regularly instructed in homelessness appeals under ss.204-204A Housing Act 1996 and related judicial review claims, including on an urgent basis and out of hours before the High Court duty judge.
He also accepts instructions on behalf of all parties in matters relating to antisocial behaviour. He appears in ex parte and on notice proceedings under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, in gang injunction applications under the Policing and Crime Act 2009, and in all types of committal proceedings. He was seconded to a local authority in the West Midlands for five months and to a private registered provider of social housing in London for two months, bolstering his experience at the injunction and committal stages.
In addition to appearing in reported cases in his own right (see below), he has assisted in leading cases in this area including Loveridge v Lambeth LBC  UKSC 65;  1 WLR 4516, Haile v Waltham Forest LBC  UKSC 34;  AC 1471, Hussain v Waltham Forest LBC  EWCA Civ 14;  1 WLR 2912, Sanneh v SSWP  EWCA Civ 49;  QB 455, Nicholas v SSD  EWCA Civ 53;  1 WLR 2116, Mohamoud v Kensington & Chelsea RLBC  EWCA Civ 780;  PTSR 289, and Southward Housing Co-operative Ltd v Walker  EWHC 1615 (Ch);  Ch 443.
He drafted the applications to the European Court of Human Rights in Sims v UK (12786/15), Nwabudike v UK (22985/15), Hussain v UK (23780/15), Huzrat v UK (34572/15), Nicholas v UK (39061/16), Saleem v UK (54019/16), Watts v UK (72974/17), Davies v UK (76761/17), Mayo v UK (76791/17), and Holley v UK (26439/18), and the petitions to the Supreme Court in Huzrat v Hounslow LBC (UKSC/2014/0265), Saleem v Wandsworth LBC (UKSC/2015/0253), Watts v Stewart (UKSC/2017/0018), and Holley v Hillingdon LBC (UKSC/2017/0226). He was instructed in Habte v Westminster CC (B5/2016/2994), Mayo v Genesis Housing Association Ltd (B5/2016/2994), Lynch v St Albans CDC (B5/2017/1500), Maloney v Hertsmere BC (B5/2017/2090), and Gentry v Watford BC (CO/4609/2017) prior to their settlement.
- Brent LBC v Alibkhiet  EWCA Civ 2742 – authorities are not required to search for accommodation over a number of days before concluding that it is not reasonably practicable to secure any in-borough (junior counsel).
- Kamara v Southwark LBC  EWCA Civ 1616;  HLR 37 – there is no requirement upon an authority to specifically inform an applicant for homelessness assistance that he can make his review representations at a face-to-face meeting (junior counsel).
- Davies v Hertfordshire CC  EWCA Civ 379;  1 WLR 4609 – it is permissible to raise a defence to a claim for possession under s.11 Children Act 2004, notwithstanding the lack of a private law right to possession (junior counsel).
- Panayiotou v Waltham Forest LBC  EWCA Civ 1624;  2 WLR 1439 – when deciding whether a person is "significantly" more vulnerable, for the purposes of determining whether he has a priority need for housing, it is necessary to apply the word in a qualitative, not quantitative, sense (first junior counsel).
- Bucknall v Dacorum BC  EWHC 2094 (QB);  HLR 40 – it is a question of fact whether accommodation occupied by a person following the authority's acceptance of the full housing duty, but prior to the discharge of that duty, is occupied "as a dwelling" (junior counsel).
- Trindade v Hackney LBC  EWCA Civ 942;  HLR 37 – an applicant will not be unaware of a relevant fact, within the meaning of the intentional homelessness provisions, if he is unaware of some future possibility; he must be unaware of some current fact (junior counsel).
- Hertfordshire CC v Davies  EWHC 1488 (QB);  1 WLR 4395 – the differential treatment between service occupiers and other tenants of local authorities is objectively justifiable, falling within the wide margin of appreciation afforded to Parliament, so that their exclusion from security of tenure does not give rise to unlawful discrimination within the meaning of art.14 ECHR (junior counsel).
- Watts v Stewart  EWCA Civ 1247;  Ch 423 – the longstanding exclusion of almspersons from security of tenure fairly balances their interests against those of the charity, so that it does not give rise to unlawful discrimination within the meaning of art.14 ECHR (second junior counsel).
- Holley v Hillingdon LBC  EWCA Civ 1052;  PTSR 127 – the period of a person's residence, however long, will not be sufficient on its own to found a proportionality defence, within the meaning of art.8 ECHR, in the second succession context (junior counsel).