![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Griffin, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Southwark [2004] EWHC 2463 (Admin) (29 October 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2004/2463.html Cite as: [2004] EWHC 2463 (Admin) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF KELLY GRIFFIN |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
THE MAYOR AND BURGESSES OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK |
Defendant |
____________________
Smith Bernal WordWave Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Donald Broatch (instructed by Deborah Holmes, Borough Solicitor, London Borough of Southwark) for the Defendant
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Silber:
I. Introduction
II. The Issues
III. The Statutory Background
“(1) If the local housing authority have reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, they shall make such enquiries as are necessary to satisfy themselves –
(a) whether he is eligible for assistance, and
(b) If so, whether any duty, and if so what duty, is owed to him under the following provisions of this Part
…
(3) On completing their inquiries, the authority shall notify the applicant of their decision and, so far as any issue is decided against his interests, inform him of the reasons for their decision.
…
(5) A notice under subsection (3).. shall also inform the applicant of his right to request a review of the decision and of the time within which such a request must be made”
“(1) This section applies where the local housing authority are satisfied that an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need, and are not satisfied that he became homeless intentionally
…
(3) The authority are subject to the duty under this section until it ceases by virtue of any of the following provisions of this section
…
(5) The local housing authority shall cease to be subject to the duty under this section if the applicant, having been informed by the authority of the possible consequence of refusal and of his right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation, refuses an offer of accommodation which the authority are satisfied is suitable for him and the authority notify him that they regard themselves as having discharged their duty under this section”
“A person who ceases to be owed the duty under this section may make a fresh application to the authority for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation”
IV. The dispute between the parties
(1) “Clearly the mere assertion that an applicant's claim ought to be considered cannot impose upon the local authority the onerous duty of making inquiries and considering the case afresh” (per Schiemann LJ at page 563 with whom Gibson and Mummery LJJ agreed);
(2) “It is common ground that a fresh claim attracts all the substantive and procedural consequences of an initial claim whereas a repetitious claim does not” (ibid.);
(3) “ In my judgment, the local authority is entitled to proceed by starting with the assumption that the first decision as to suitability was correct and then go on to consider whether, disregarding material which is insignificant or incredible or which was available to the applicant at the time of the determination of his first claim, the new material placed in front of the local authority gives reason to believe that the decision as to homelessness ought to be reversed. This process inevitably involves making a judgment as to the significance and credibility of the new material” (ibid);
(4)“…a local authority's decision that there has been no material change in circumstances can only be challenged on Wednesbury grounds.”(ibid).
“I have sympathy with Harrow's case on this point but I am unable to extract from the statutory language any sufficient justification for the suggested short cut. Under [the predecessor of section 184] the statutory duty to make enquiries arises if (a) a person applies for accommodation (b) “the authority have reason to believe he may be homeless or threatened with homelessness”. It is established that requirement (a) is not satisfied if an application purports to be made by a person who lacks the capacity to do so…Moreover when an applicant has been given temporary accommodation under [the predecessor to section 184] and is then found to be intentionally homeless he cannot make a further application based on exactly the same facts as his earlier application”. (Page 1402 B)
“but those are very special cases where it is possible to say there is no application before the local authority and therefore the mandatory duty imposed by [the statutory predecessor to section 184] has not arisen. But in the present case there is no doubt that where [the homeless applicant] made her further application for accommodation she was threatened with homelessness. Moreover in my judgment her application could not be treated as identical with the earlier 1994 application. She was relying on her eviction from the guesthouse which, for one year, she had been occupying as the direct licensee of the guesthouse proprietor, paying the rate for that accommodation. She was reimbursed the amount of the rent by way of housing benefit but the fact was that she had occupied the premises as licensee for a year. It is impossible to say that there has been no relevant change in circumstances at all.”(Page 1402D to E)
V. Was Southwark obliged to consider on its merits the 2004 application because of the differences between it and the 2002 application?
“has been unable to agree that there has been a material change in your circumstances following our offer of suitable accommodation [on the Aylesbury Estate]”
VI. Conclusion