Jennifer Hoyte v London Borough of Southwark
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Ms Amanda Yip |
| Judgment Date | 08 July 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 1665 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 08 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/1400/2016 |
[2016] EWHC 1665 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Amanda Yip QC
(Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)
Case No: CO/1400/2016
The Queen on the application of
Ms Liz Davies (instructed by Southwark Law Centre) for the Claimant
Mr Donald Broatch (instructed by Legal Services Dept, Southwark LBC) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 28 June 2016
Approved Judgment
Ms Amanda Yip QC:
This is a claim for judicial review in which the claimant challenges the decision of the defendant local authority not to accept a further application from her as a homeless applicant under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 ("the Act"), as set out in a letter dated 2 nd March 2016.
Permission to proceed with the claim was granted by Sir Stephen Silber, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, on 14 th May 2016.
The application which is the subject of these proceedings was made on 1 st March 2016. It was the third application for priority housing made by the claimant within a year. In respect of the first two, made in June 2015 and October 2015, it is accepted that the defendant followed the correct process before lawfully deciding that she did not have a priority need for housing. The relevant application was then made by way of a solicitor's letter in which it was claimed that there had been a change of circumstances. However, the defendant refused to accept the claim, concluding in the letter of 2 nd March 2016 that:
"there has been no material change in circumstances and the facts which led to the decision that she is not in priority need."
It is the claimant's case that the defendant was wrong in law in refusing to accept the application. The claimant maintains that the defendant ought to have made inquiries into her vulnerability in light of new facts existing at the time, following the procedure in Part VII of the Act. Had that led to an adverse decision, the authority would then have been required to notify the claimant of its decision and give reasons. She would then have had a right to a review and ultimately an appeal to the County Court. Such remedies do not lie against the refusal to entertain the application. Therefore, the claimant brings this claim, seeking to require the defendant to make inquiries and to notify her of its decision under the process set out in section 184 of the Act. That would also give rise to an obligation to provide temporary housing until notification of the decision to her.
The defendant maintains that the claimant's application disclosed no relevant new facts and therefore that its decision not to accept the claim was right, or in any event was within a range of reasonable responses open to the authority. The defendant therefore contends that there is no basis for this court to intervene and the judicial review cannot succeed.
The Facts
The claimant is aged 58. She has a troubled history. She has a long history of mental health problems and has a diagnosis of depression. It is not disputed that she is homeless. She has been staying on a temporary and insecure basis with her two daughters, moving between them and sleeping on their sofas.
In June 2015, the claimant made an application for homelessness assistance using the defendant's standard assessment form. The defendant carried out inquiries before concluding that the claimant did not have a priority need since she was not significantly more vulnerable than someone who is ordinarily vulnerable as a result of being homeless. That decision was upheld on review in August 2015. During this process, reference was made to the claimant's depression and to self-neglect but not to any suicide ideation or risk.
The claimant made a second application on 15 th October 2015. By then, she had been seen by a clinical psychologist, Mr Shuttleworth, who had been instructed by her solicitors. His report dated 21 st September 2015 was enclosed with the application. Mr Shuttleworth diagnosed a Major Depressive Disorder, which he assessed as quite severe, and concluded that the claimant must be considered "quite a high suicide risk". There was reference to the claimant having frequent suicidal ideas and keeping a "death pack" with medication which could be used to take her own life. It was said that she had attempted to kill herself with pills the previous year but had been interrupted by her daughter. Mr Shuttleworth suggested that if she were 'street homeless' the claimant's mood would very quickly deteriorate to the point where she would become extremely suicidal.
The defendant obtained medical advice from a medical adviser, Dr Thakore. He did not examine the claimant but reviewed her account and Mr Shuttleworth's report. Dr Thakore stated:
"There are no unstable psychotic tendencies or active suicidal thoughts to consider that would prompt emergency or enhanced psychiatric care."
He concluded that the claimant was not significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person. He did indicate that he would happily review the case should any further psychiatric reports become available.
The defendant decided on 2 nd December 2015 that the claimant was not in priority need and that she was intentionally homeless. The latter point was not subsequently maintained. The claimant requested a review of the decision. In the course of the review process, the claimant's GP records were obtained by the defendant and the claimant's solicitors served a second report from Mr Shuttleworth which took issue with Dr Thakore's assessment and restated his opinion that there was a risk of suicide.
Having completed the review, the defendant notified the claimant of its decision on 3 rd February 2016 by way of an email enclosing a letter running to 64 paragraphs giving reasons for the decision. The defendant concluded that the claimant was not in priority need as her medical problems and circumstances were not such as to make her significantly more vulnerable than a person who is ordinarily vulnerable as a result of being homeless.
The defendant's long letter properly identified the statutory framework and dealt with the test of 'vulnerability' by reference to the legal authorities. It then summarised Mr Shuttleworth's reports, Dr Thakore's advice and the G.P. records. At paragraph 41, the defendant's officer stated:
"On my review of the information I still prefer the patient account records of the GP to both opinions but note that the opinion of the professional that has not met or examined Ms Hoyte appears closer to the records held in the GP summary. For example it appears consistent in the records that there is no active suicidal plan or risk within the GP records but it was considered that Ms Hoyte was a high suicide risk in the report of 21 September 2015. Pre the meeting of 8 September 2015 with Dr Shuttleworth and post the meeting Ms Hoyte had contact with her surgery and the aspect of the report on suicidal intentions and risk appear extremely different."
The letter went on to accept that Mr Shuttleworth had formed the opinion that he had but referred to an entry made by the G.P. on 21 st October 2015 following an examination of Mrs Hoyte which included:
"NO thoughts / plans dSH. Children and Grandchildren protective factor."
[I understand the letters DSH in medical records to refer to deliberate self harm.]
The letter went on:
"Whilst all matters may not be discussed with a GP, I am of the view that it has been recorded by the GP who has regular consultation and examination of their patients and I am satisfied that the opinion logged on the patient notes reflects the view of the GP."
On 23 rd February 2016, the claimant received advice that she could not appeal the review decision. Her temporary accommodation was to cease on 2 nd March 2016. It is the claimant's case that on 24 th February 2016 she formed the intention to commit suicide and embarked on a plan to do so. She emptied her bank account and boarded a bus towards Blackfriars Bridge intending either to jump from the bridge or to throw herself under a train. She claims to have given the money from her account to strangers on the bus. However, her GP had concerns about her and called her mobile phone while she was on the bus. She was persuaded to go to the surgery instead and was seen by Dr Patel. The claimant says that while waiting in the surgery she contemplated throwing herself from a first floor window. When seen by Dr Patel he recorded that there was "clear suicidal ideation". An urgent referral was made back to the mental health team and she saw a mental health nurse, Mr Sarfo, on 25 th February 2016. In a report of the same date, Mr Sarfo wrote:
"My view after the consultation is, Jennifer is suffering from depression. She is very low in mood and has active suicidal thoughts with plausible evidence of plan and intent. Her current stressor is undeniably her accommodation situation. The threat of eviction in under a week with no viable option to street-homelessness is clearly a huge stressor. She reports continuous thoughts about ending her life."
On 1 st March 2016, the Claimant made her third application for homelessness assistance by way of a letter from her solicitors which included the report of Mr Sarfo and a letter from her GP, Dr Franco, dated 26 th February 2016 which confirmed the findings of Dr Patel on 24 th February and summarised the findings at the mental health appointment that she "demonstrated suicidality". Dr Franco said that she wholly supported the claimant in her appeal against her current housing situation.
The claimant's solicitors suggested that the previous review decision was based on the fact that the GP had a different view from that of Mr...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lemari Minott v Cambridge City Council
...and Chelsea RLBC) v Ealing LBC [2017] EWHC 24 (Admin), [2017] PTSR 1029 (HHJ Walden-Smith), and R (Hoyte) v Southwark LBC [2016] EWHC 1665 (Admin), [2016] HLR 35 (Amanda Yip 89 What is striking about all these cases is that in each of them the court decided that the housing authority had......
-
The Queen (on the application of Dora Tendresse Ibrahim) v Westminster City Council
...application to the material provisions of Part VII of the 1996 Act. 65 In the first instance decision of R (Hoyte) v Lambeth LBC [2016] EWHC 1665 (Admin); [2016] H.L.R. 35, Ms Amanda Yip QC (as she then was), and following Begum at [44], stated that ‘…the fact that material is before a dec......