Amirun Begum (1) and Nashima Begum (2) v The London Borough of Tower Hamlets
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Stanley Burnton,MR JUSTICE STANLEY BURNTON |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 633 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4547/2001 |
| Date | 30 April 2002 |
[2002] EWHC 633 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Case No: CO/4547/2001
Kate Markus (instructed by T V Edwards) for the Claimants
Kelvin Rutledge (instructed by Tower Hamlets Legal Services) for the Defendant
This is an application by Amirun Begum (to whom I shall refer as Mrs Begum) and her daughter Nashima Begum for orders requiring the Defendant to provide suitable accommodation for them and their extended family under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”).
The extended family is extremely disadvantaged. It is unnecessary to set out in detail all their medical and other problems, but some description is necessary. Mrs Begum is aged 56. She suffers from severe arthritis, severe diabetes, hypertension, a stomach ulcer, ischaemic heart disease, impaired vision and urinary incontinence, among other matters. The degree of her immobility is in issue, but it is accepted that she cannot climb stairs. She requires significant personal care, which is provided by her children.
Nashima is aged 19. She has cerebral palsy and learning difficulties and is a full-time wheelchair user. She has a mental age of 4. She is doubly incontinent. She too requires constant personal care, which is provided by her siblings and by Rokib Ali's wife.
Mrs Begum has 10 other children:
(a) Momota is aged 30. She has a daughter born in October 2000. She is relatively well.
(b) Ruhi Begum is aged 29. She does not live with her mother, but helps care for her and others in the family. According to the claim form, she suffers from chronic bronchial asthma and other conditions, and is in turn cared for by Rokib.
(c) Forid Ali, aged 27. He is married, with 2 children, aged about 6 months and 2 years. His wife is Rumana. Forid was a drug abuser, and then had a tendency to self-harm. There is an issue as to the extent to which he remains vulnerable to drug abuse and self harm. According to his present and his previous General Practitioner, he is now free of drugs and has been very stable since May 2000 and does not need family support. A letter dated 15 March 2002 from Violet Smith, a health visitor, gives a different picture, stating that Forid is incapable of looking after himself or his family, that there have been intermittent relapses and episodes of self-harm, and that Rumana too requires a great deal of supervision and support to cope with the children, provided in particular by Momota.
(d) Rokib Ali is aged 26. He provides care to other members of the family.
(e) Altab Ali is aged 25. He is mentally disabled and requires constant care and supervision.
(f) Anam Ali, aged 23, suffers from asthma. He is the official carer for Amirun, and responsible for administering her medication and injections, among other matters.
(g) Amzad Ali, aged 22. According to the Claimants, he suffered a slipped disc while lifting Nashima, and was advised not to lift her again. His General Practitioner states that he suffered backache. He helps care for both Nashima and Mrs Begum.
(h) Mored Ali is aged 21. He suffers from asthma (which may be very mild) and is dyslexic.
(i) Fatima, aged 17. According to the Claimants, she suffers from bronchitis and arthritis. Her General Practitioner however considers that she has no significant continuing medical problems.
(j) Amina. According to the Claimants, she suffers from asthma, Turner's syndrome and depression. Her General Practitioner refers only to Turner's syndrome, and states that her condition has no relevance to her housing needs.
Mrs Begum was separated from her husband in 1998 as a result of his violence. She applied to the Defendant under Part 7 of the Act on the basis that she and her children were homeless. The Defendant provided them with accommodation under s. 188. It was unsuitable for their needs. In January 1999, they were offered their present accommodation, consisting of adjacent houses at 141 and 143 Knapp Rd, in Bow, London E3. These houses are owned by the Defendant but let to LABO Housing Association. Mrs Begum accepted that accommodation against the advice of their occupational therapist, who considered it to be unsuitable for the family's needs. It consists of 2 adjacent houses, each with 3 bedrooms, 2 reception rooms, a kitchen and a garden. There is no downstairs toilet or bathroom; as a result neither Mrs Begum nor Nashima has access to these basic facilities, and Mrs Begum is either unable to use them or finds using the stairs so painful that she avoids doing so. The houses are not suitable for wheelchair access.
By letter dated 7 April 1999, the Defendant informed Mrs Begum that it was satisfied that she was eligible for housing assistance, was homeless and had a priority need for accommodation as defined in the Act; and that her homelessness was not intentional. In other words, the Defendant accepted that it was under the duty to secure suitable accommodation for her and, it would seem, her family, under s. 193 of the Act.
Mrs Begum and her family have remained in Knapp Rd since January 1999.
In December 2000, the Defendant nominated Mrs Begum to a four-bedroom fully-adapted property of Springboard Housing Association. It was capable of accommodating 8 persons, and was regarded by the Defendant as suitable for the Claimants, coupled, as it was, with an offer of a two-bedroom property for occupation by the rest of the family.
On 11 January 2001, the Defendant's Acting Housing Manager, Rafiqul Hoque, visited Mrs Begum, and discussed their housing situation. As a result, the Defendant discovered that Forid was married and that his wife was pregnant, and that Momota had a baby daughter born in October 2000 but was separated from her husband. Mr Hoque pointed out the shortage of large accommodation units in the Borough and the long waiting list for them. He stated in his letter to Mrs Begum dated 29 January 2001 that she had agreed that the family should be split for housing as follows: a main application to include Mrs Begum, Momota, Amina, Nasima, Fatima and Momota's daughter; a second application to include Anam Ali, Amzad Ali and Morid Ali; and a third application for Forid and his wife. He also stated that Mrs Begum had agreed to view a 4-bedroom property (presumably the Springboard Housing Association property) for those included in the main application.
On 18 January 2001 the Claimants’ solicitors wrote to the Defendant an admirably comprehensive letter setting out the family's difficulties and stating that their main problems were the unsuitability of their housing and the inadequacy of services to meet the family's needs. The family rejected the property referred to by Mr Haque because the family wanted to live all together, and wished to have two adjacent four-bedroom properties (which would be capable of accommodating 16 persons, as against the 15 persons then in the extended family). The Claimants’ solicitors called on the Defendant to carry out comprehensive assessments of the family's needs for community care and other services, and of their housing needs.
By letter dated 13 February 2001, the Defendant informed Mrs Begum that it would carry out a total of 13 assessments of the needs of her and her family in order to decide what decisions should be made in relation to them. The Defendant subsequently informed the Defendant's solicitors that the target date for the completion of the assessments was 1 June 2001.
In April 2001, the minimum period for which the Defendant was under a duty to provide accommodation to the family under s. 193 expired. However, the Defendant has exercised its power under s. 194 to continue to secure their accommodation, and proposes to continue to do so.
By 6 July 2001, only 9 assessments had been completed. Copies of them were sent to the Claimants’ solicitors by letter of that date. In that letter, the Defendant explained that there had been difficulties in meeting the family, due to their failing to keep appointments, and that conflicting information was being given by the family.
Further assessments, relating to Mrs Begum and Forid Ali, were sent to the Claimants’ solicitors on 10 September 2001.
On 27 September 2001, LABO Housing Association served notices to quit both 141 and 143 Knapp Road. The Association proposes to purchase the properties from the Defendant and to refurbish them. It is common ground that the Association is entitled to possession, and will in due course (i.e., within 2 to 3 months) obtain possession as a result of its pending proceedings in the County Court.
On 3 October 2001 the Claimants’ solicitors sent a detailed letter before action to the Defendant, complaining about the outstanding assessment, alleging that assessments already carried out were defective, and stating that the family's housing situation was now critical. The letter stated that LABO Housing Association were willing to offer both 141 and 143 Knapp Road to the Begum family after refurbishment, but needed the Defendant to nominate the family to that accommodation so that the refurbishment work could include the necessary work to make the properties suitable for Mrs Begum and Nashima. It was stated that the Claimants’ preference was to remain in Knapp Road.
The Defendant did not respond to the letter of 3 October 2001. As a result, these proceedings were begun on 8 November 2001. The claim form seeks mandatory orders directing the Defendant to nominate the family to LABO Housing Association for permanent housing, to secure...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (Ireneschild) v Lambeth London BC
... ... Between Lambeth London Borough Council Appellant and ... LJ, as she then was, in R (Wahid) v LB Tower Hamlets [2002] EWCA Civ 287 , [2003] HLR 13 ... on a decision of Stanley Burnton J in R (Begum) v LB Tower Hamlets [2002] HLR 70 ... At ... ...
-
London Borough of Hackney v Haque
...applied by Owen J in Bibi v Newham LBC [2003] EWHC 1860 (Admin) at paragraph 35, by Stanley Burnton J in R (Begum) v Tower Hamlets LBC [2002] EWHC 633, and by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC in R v Lewisham LBCex parte: Dolan (1993) 25 HLR 68. Examples of more recent cases which turned on specific......
-
The Queen (on the application of Ruba Imam) v The London Borough of Croydon
...in this way, for the reasons given by Stanley Burnton J in R (on the application of Begum) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets, [2002] EWHC 633 (Admin), [2003] HLR 8 (“ Begum v Tower Hamlets”) at [29]: “… I am satisfied that only in exceptional circumstances, if at all, may a local authorit......
-
R Princess Bell v London Borough of Lambeth
...a property for a particular applicant is therefore not permissible even for Part VII purposes: R (Begum) v Tower Hamlets LBC [2002] EWHC 633; [2002] HLR 8, 70 at [29]. As Mr Conyers explained, earmarking a property for the Claimant will not be fair on other applicants. 77 In judging the rea......