Jack Jones v Luton Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Ter Haar |
| Judgment Date | 03 August 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 2036 (Admin) |
| Date | 03 August 2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/881/2016 |
[2016] EWHC 2036 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Ter Haar QC
(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)
Case No: CO/881/2016
Joanna Gillan (instructed by Abbott Solicitors) for the Claimant
Simon Birks (instructed by David Watson, Legal Services, Luton Borough Council) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 19 July 2016
Approved Judgment
Mr Ter Haar QC:
In these proceedings the Claimant challenges a decision dated the 12 th November 2015 by the Defendant's Housing Appeals and Review Panel ("HARP") to refuse the Claimant's appeal against the decision of the Housing Needs Review Panel ("HNRP") not to offer the Claimant a new tenancy of 33 Duncombe Close, Luton, following the death of the Claimant's father.
Following an initial refusal of permission on paper, permission to apply for Judicial Review was granted by Gilbart J. on the 22 nd June 2016 limited to ground 4 of the original application only, namely that the Council did not deal with the fact that Jake Town was part of the application.
The tenancy of 33 Duncombe Close, a 2 bedroomed property, was granted to the Claimant's mother and father, jointly, in 1997.
The Claimant moved into the property in 1997 at the age of 14.
In 2011, the Claimant entered into a civil partnership with Mr. Philip Town. By this time, the Claimant's mother had become unwell. The Claimant and Mr. Town cared for both of the Claimant's parents.
In October 2011, the Claimant's mother was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer and the Claimant gave up employment to care for his parents. The Claimant's mother died in June 2012.
The Claimant's father then became the tenant of the property by survivorship.
In March 2015, Mr. Town's brother, Jake Town, moved into the property following the breakdown of a long-term relationship and the loss of his home. Jake Town has complex health issues including brittle diabetes and frequent episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis necessitating emergency hospital admissions.
There is before the Court a letter from Jake Town's G.P. which addresses the implication for Jake Town's health if he were to become homeless. As is pointed out by Mr. Birks on behalf of the Defendant, it does not say that he cannot live on his own.
From December 2014, the Claimant's father had become progressively unwell. On the 12 th May 2015, he had a chest X Ray, following which he was admitted to hospital. On the 15 th May 2015, the Claimant was informed that his father had terminal lung cancer. His father dies on the following day, the 16 th May 2015.
The Claimant had and has no statutory right of succession to the tenancy. The Defendant served a Notice to Quit which expired on the 3 rd August 2015.
In considering whether to allow the Claimant to take over the tenancy, the Defendant had to consider its wider obligations.
In common with all housing authorities, the Defendant has a much greater demand for its housing than it can supply. The evidence before me was that there were at the material time over 4,400 households in Luton which had sought help from the Defendant and were in need of 2 bedroom accommodation. The greatest need, and the greatest shortage, was of 2 bedroom accommodation.
The Defendant's case is that it owed duties, and sometimes a duty to provide accommodation, to the members of all those 4,400 households. The Defendant says that it was mindful of the needs of those households.
The Defendant has a published Choice Based Lettings Allocations Policy. Paragraph 4.4 of the Policy provides as follows:
" Non-Successors
If a tenant of the Council dies and there is another member of the household who does not have the right to succeed but who:
Had been living with the tenant for the year before the tenant's death (this does not include lodgers or B&B guests) or
Had been resident and looking after the tenant for the year before the tenant's death or
Has lawfully accepted responsibility for the tenant's dependants
The Council will consider offering a new tenancy where the landlord is satisfied this is a priority when viewed in the context of other demands on housing needs in the area. If a new tenancy is considered, this could be either in the same accommodation or in suitable alternative accommodation."
To resume the narrative: the Defendant having served the Notice to Quit, the Claimant provided medical evidence to the Defendant's HNRP which explained that the Claimant suffered from chronic depression and advised that eviction from the property could exacerbate his condition. The medical evidence also explained that Philip Town also suffered from chronic depression. Again in his case the advice was that eviction from the property could exacerbate his condition.
The HNRP considered the Claimant's submission. It decided that Jake Town was not a permanent member of the household. However the HNRP did recognise the circumstances of the Claimant and his civil partner and offered them the lease of a one bedroom property.
The Claimant subsequently went before the HNRP for a second time. The Claimant provided further submissions, including a submission from Jake Town, in which he stated that he would be asking his GP to provide a letter.
Although the Claimant provided a letter from Jake Town's GP, this was not placed before the HNRP as the Defendant's Housing Officer was absent from work when it was received.
In a decision dated the 30 th July 2015 the HNRP decided as follows:
" Panel has considered case under section 4.4 of the Council's Allocation Policy. Having considered prevailing local conditions, it is agreed that an allocation of a one bed property in Runfold or Saints area will be made to the non-successor by way of a direct let. Partner's brother is not considered to be a permanent member of the household.
Having reviewed –
• All paperwork submitted by and on behalf of Mr. Jones;
• The contents of the Council's published Allocations Policy;
• The Council's Housing Landlord and Housing Benefit records
The Panel ratified its original decision.
It is felt that an offer of a one bedroom unit of accommodation in the current area is reasonable and fully complies with the published Allocations Policy. The Panel is mindful that neither Mr. Jones's partner or partner's brother were declared as residing at the property for the purposes of Housing Benefit calculations immediately prior to the tenant's death. As such, Jake Town is not considered to be a relevant member of the household for the purposes of considering an allocation of accommodation. Case therefore needs to be forwarded to Appeals Committee for review of case by Members of the Council."
As the HNRP had not changes its position, the Claimant appealed to the HARP. The HARP refused to allow the appeal. The appeal decision was dated the 12 th November 2015. The HARP had a report before it, of which the following passages are relevant:
" 5. In recognition of the fact that Jack lived in the property and was the main carer for his father rather than require him to seek his own accommodation, the Housing Needs Review Panel have agreed to make a direct let of a one bedroom property to Jack and his partner Philip. It was agreed...
To continue reading
Request your trial