Riccardo has extensive experience in public law claims. He acts for and against public bodies in matters relating to all of Chambers' core practice areas, particularly in judicial review claims, housing and homelessness matters, and property law. He regularly advises and appears in claims for judicial review and associated applications, including on an interim basis.

He has recently been instructed in the High Court and Court of Appeal in applications under s.222 Local Government Act 1972, in judicial review claims arising out of local authorities' homelessness function, in immigration appeals from the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in welfare welfare benefits cases in the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber), and in inquests before HM Coroner. He regularly advises in unlawful detention claims in the High Court and County Court.

Recent cases

• R (Goloshvili) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 614 (Admin); [2019] HLR 37 (heard with R (JCWI) v SSHD [2019] EWHC 452 (Admin); [2019] 4 All ER 527) – the right-to-rent scheme in the Immigration Act 2014 does not give rise to direct race discrimination because of statutory exemptions in the Equality Act 2010.
• HS (Bangladesh) v SSHD [2019] EWCA Civ 268 – the question whether family life exists for the purposes of art.8 ECHR is binary, and does not admit of degrees of sufficiency.
• Ali v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 2220 – the words "time spent... studying" within the Immigration Rules were to be determined solely by reference to the dates contained in the Certificate of Acceptance for Studies, and did not require consideration of the time actually spent studying.
• Birmingham CC v Ditta, High Court (QBD), 3 April 2018 (unreported) – a contemnor who knew that an injunction existed could not defend an application for his committal on the basis that he did not know what it restrained him from doing because he had not acquainted himself with its terms.
• R (Davis) v Watford BC [2018] EWCA Civ 529; [2018] 1 WLR 3157 – where a homeless person appeals under s.204 Housing Act 1996 against the authority's s.184 decision because they have not notified him of their s.202 review decision within the prescribed time, the appropriate means of challenging any refusal to extend interim accommodation is by way of judicial review, not by s.204A appeal.
• R (Edwards) v Birmingham CC [2016] EWHC 173 (Admin); [2016] HLR 11 – the local authority's homelessness function did not contain the alleged systemic gatekeeping practices.

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. 

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 [2014] UKSC 65; [2014] 1 WLR 4516, Haile v Waltham Forest LBC [2015] UKSC 34; [2015] AC 1471, Hussain v Waltham Forest LBC [2015] EWCA Civ 14; [2015] 1 WLR 2912, Sanneh v SSWP [2015] EWCA Civ 49; [2016] QB 455, Nicholas v SSD [2015] EWCA Civ 53; [2015] 1 WLR 2116, Mohamoud v Kensington & Chelsea RLBC [2015] EWCA Civ 780; [2016] PTSR 289, and Southward Housing Co-operative Ltd v Walker [2015] EWHC 1615 (Ch); [2016] 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), Holley v Hillingdon LBC (UKSC/2017/0226), and Davies v Hertfordshire CC (UKSC/2019/0018). 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.

Recent cases

• Adesotu v Lewisham LBC [2019] EWCA Civ 1405; [2019] 1 WLR 5637 –  the County Court does not have jurisdiction in a s.204 Housing Act 1996 homelessness appeal to determine claims of disability-relates discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. 
• Brent LBC v Alibkhiet [2018] EWCA Civ 2742; [2019] HLR 15 – 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.
• Kamara v Southwark LBC [2018] EWCA Civ 1616; [2019] PTSR 279 – 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.
• Davies v Hertfordshire CC [2018] EWCA Civ 379; [2018] 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.
• Panayiotou v Waltham Forest LBC [2017] EWCA Civ 1624; [2018] QB 1232 – 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.
• Bucknall v Dacorum BC [2017] EWHC 2094 (QB); [2017] HLR 40 – it is a question of fact whether accommodation occupied by a person following the authority's acceptance of the s.193 full housing duty, but prior to the discharge of that duty, is occupied "as a dwelling".
• Trindade v Hackney LBC [2017] EWCA Civ 942; [2017] 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.
• Hertfordshire CC v Davies [2017] EWHC 1488 (QB); [2017] 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.
• Watts v Stewart [2016] EWCA Civ 1247; [2018] 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.
• Holley v Hillingdon LBC [2016] EWCA Civ 1052; [2017] PTSR 127 – the period of a person's residence, however long, will not be sufficient on its own to found an art.8 ECHR proportionality defence in the second succession context.

Riccardo accepts instructions from residential and commercial landlords and tenants in the High Court, Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), County Court, and First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). He is particularly interested in matters involving Airbnb and other short-lettings services on which he has written a number of articles (see below).

He advises and represents clients in housing enforcement matters under the Housing Act 2004 and in Environmental Protection Act 1990 cases, including in prosecuting and defending criminal proceedings. He also accepts instructions in matters relating to rent repayment orders, tenancy deposits, management orders, and social housing fraud (particularly where there is an Airbnb element).

Recent cases

• Hussain v Waltham Forest LBC [2019] UKUT 339 (LC) – when deciding whether an applicant is a "fit and proper person" to hold a licence, local authorities are permitted to consider the circumstances, including the conduct, underlying a spent conviction notwithstanding the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
• Universal Business Team Pty Ltd v Moffitt [2017] EWHC 3251 (Ch) – where a search order had been deliberately thwarted in a number of ways, such that a serious contempt of court had been committed, the minimum appropriate sentence was an immediate custodial sentence of 14 months.
• Leaseholders of Foundling Court and O'Donnell Court v Camden LBC [2016] UKUT 366 (LC); [2017] L&TR 7 – the statutory obligation under s.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to consult in respect of qualifying works falls on the landlord who intends to carry out the works, not an intermediate landlord.

Riccardo has a growing planning and highways practice. He represents the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, local authorities, and developers at s.288 statutory reviews, inquiries, and hearings, and in prosecutions. He has a particular interest in town and village greens.

He is a contributor to the planning law section of LexisPSL, an online tool providing practical guidance.

Recent cases

• Abbots Ride Land Ltd v Surrey CC [2019] EWHC 3560 (QB) – it was for the claimant to prove that a public right of way did not exist over its land; while the trial judge was wrong to conclude that there had been an express dedication of that land, she was entitled to find that dedication and acceptance could be inferred.
• Stroud DC v SSHCLG, High Court (Admin), 9 August 2019 (unreported) – a latter grant of planning permission relating only to operational development did not override conditions attached to a prior grant relating also to a change of use, and the Secretary of State's inspector had not acted irrationally in any of the four ways asserted by the local planning authority in part-granting permission.