Lemari Minott v Cambridge City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lickley |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 211 (Admin) |
| Date | 08 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/4404/2019 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2021] EWHC 211 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Lickley QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
Case No: CO/4404/2019
The Queen -on the Application of-
Mr Vanhegan (instructed by GT Stewart Solicitors) for the Claimant
Mr Grundy QC (instructed by Cambridge City Council) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 21 st January 2021
Approved Judgment
His Honour Judge Lickley QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court:
In this matter the Claimant Lemari Minott seeks to challenge the Defendant council's (CCC) decision dated the 21/10/19 to refuse to accept a fresh homelessness application from him following an alleged change in his circumstances. The short point in this matter can be stated as follows namely, whether the Claimant acquired a local connection for the purposes of establishing that he was ‘ normally resident’ having occupied temporary accommodation provided by the defendant in discharge of an interim duty under the Housing Act 1996 for more than six months when that continued occupation was after any housing duty owed to him had expired, a referral to another Housing authority (HA) had been made and accepted, and after the right of occupation had been terminated and he occupied the accommodation without permission.
For the purposes of this decision I grant permission for the parties to rely upon the additional witness statements from the Claimant and Mr Penn and Ms Begum-Rusi on behalf of the defendant.
The facts of this matter can be stated briefly. The Claimant was born on the 28/12/94 and was, in the early part of 2019, unemployed. He said in his first witness statement that he lived with his father at 15 Cumberland Rd West Bromwich until April 2018 when the relationship broke down and he became homeless. He says that he helped his mother to escape from domestic violence from her ex-partner and with his assistance his mother moved with his siblings eventually settling in Cambridge. The Claimant described his mother's personal circumstances and that he was working as a courier driver requiring him to drive to a depot in Birmingham and spend some time sleeping in his van or sofa surfing with friends in Cambridge or his mother who by then had found accommodation there.
The Claimant applied as a homeless person to CCC the relevant Housing Authority on the 26/3/19 and was provided with temporary accommodation under S.188 Housing Act 1996 (HA 96) that day because there was reason to believe he was eligible, homeless and had a priority need. The following day he was provided with accommodation at 27 Gilbert Close Cambridge (the relevant accommodation). The Claimant described the accommodation provided as ‘non-secure’ in his witness statement.
Having made inquiries the defendant council decided that the Claimant did not have a ‘local connection’ for the purposes of SS198 / 199 HA 96 in Cambridge but did with Sandwell MBC (Sandwell). On the 8/1/19 the Claimant's case was referred to Sandwell and on the 9/8/19 Sandwell accepted the referral namely that they agreed with the defendants that the Claimant had a local connection with Sandwell.
By letter dated the 8/8/19 the Claimant was informed of the S.184 HA 96 decision made in his case that he was homeless but that he did not have any local connection with Cambridge and accordingly the duty to take reasonable steps to help him and resolve this homelessness had been referred to the authority where he did have a local connection. In a detailed letter Semina Begum-Rusi set out the reasons for that decision. The letter ended by saying that if the referral was accepted by the local authority to whom the case had been referred then that authority would be under a duty to provide the claimant with suitable temporary accommodation from the day the duty was accepted by them. The letter also informed the Claimant that he had a right to request a review of that decision.
On 19/8/19 CCC sent a letter to the Claimant pursuant to S.198(A1) HA 96 notifying him that the conditions for referral of his case were met and that Sandwell had accepted the referral. The letter informed the Claimant that because Sandwell had accepted the referral his homeless application began with that authority on the date of the referral to them which was the 8/8/19. The letter also informed the Claimant that the duty to provide temporary accommodation also ended when CCC notified Sandwell that they were intending to refer him. Accordingly, the Claimant was told, because the referral had been accepted, his temporary accommodation would be terminated and that Sandwell would thereafter have a duty to provide him with temporary accommodation while they worked with him to try and relieve his homelessness. That letter informed the Claimant that he had a right of review of that decision pursuant to S.202 of the HA 96.
On 22/8/19 the Claimant requested a review of the decision to refer his case to Sandwell pursuant to S.202(1). On 23/8/19 the Claimant asked Mr Penn a Senior Housing Advisor for CCC how he could get a local connection. Mr Penn told him of the four grounds within S199 HA 96. He was also told that he could request that the council provide him with accommodation pending the review. The Claimant did so on the 27/8/19. On 28/8/19 the council decided not to provide him with accommodation pending review and they informed him of that decision by letter of the same date.
As a consequence of the decision not to provide accommodation pending the review CCC terminated the Claimant's licence to occupy 27 Gilbert Close by notice dated the 22/8/19. That notice was served on him on the 23/8/19 informing him that the weekly licence would expire on Sunday 1/9/19 and requiring him to deliver up possession of the premises to the council no later than 10.00hrs on Monday 2/9/19. He was given instructions as to what to do with the keys. The notice informed him that if he did not leave the premises and return the keys by the date specified the locks would be changed and any possessions will be kept in storage for 28 days before disposal. The accompanying letter reiterated that the licence to occupy had been terminated and reminded the Claimant that following their investigation into his circumstances a decision was made that he had no local connection to Cambridge City and that his application had been transferred to Sandwell the local authority that he did have a local connection to. The letter stated that Sandwell had accepted the referral. On the reverse of the notice of termination of the licence is the signed note confirming service in person on the 23/8/19. I add that during the hearing of this matter an issue arose as to the service of the notice and the requisite days of notice however I am satisfied the notice was served on the 23/8/19 and accept that where Mr Penn in his more recent witness statement stated the notice was served on the 28/8/19 that was, as I was informed, an error. The witness statement of Ms Begum-Rusi dated 9/10/19 clarified the position stating that the notice was served personally on the claimant by a member of the housing team Miss Melody Turner on the 23/8/19. Therefore after the 2/9/19 the Claimant occupied the accommodation without permission and thereby unlawfully.
Mr Penn confirmed that Sandwell stated that they would provide temporary accommodation for the Claimant. Sandwell were told by email that the Claimant had been served with a notice ending his licence so that they would know when to provide their accommodation.
On 2/9/19 the keys were not returned to CCC. Following that Michelle Hayes an officer at Sandwell sent an email on the Claimant's behalf to CCC stating that they had changed their mind about accepting the referral because his intentions were to remain in Cambridge and his mother had fled from an abusive relationship. Mr Penn replied to Sandwell on the 3/9/19 stating the reasons why the conditions for referral had been met under S.198 HA 96 and that the Claimant did not have a local connection to Cambridge.
On the 4/9/19 the claimant said he would not be leaving the temporary accommodation in a telephone conversation with a member of the housing team in Cambridge. An attempt was made to change the locks on the property because it had been provisionally allocated to another family however the claimant was present in the property. Because S.6 Criminal Law Act 1977 states that an offence is committed if an eviction is carried out when someone is on the premises at the time who is opposed to the property entry the property could not be taken back. Therefore, although CCC had a right to possession of the property as the Claimant was there the locks could not be changed. Several attempts were made to do that but the Claimant was at the property on each occasion.
On the 6/9/19 Michelle Hayes at Sandwell advised that the referral had been accepted. The Claimant was informed of that decision and that he should contact Sandwell who would organise temporary accommodation in that area. He was given a number to call and told what to do. He advised Ms Begum-Rusi that he would not leave because he had been advised that a warrant would be needed to evict him. He told her that ‘ in a few weeks he would acquire a local connection’. Accordingly, the Claimant made decisions not take up the matter with Sandwell and remained in the property without permission in order to gain what he believed to be was an advantage in pursuing his housing application with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lemari Minott v Cambridge City Council
...COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE AND PLANNING COURT Judge Lickley QC (Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) [2021] EWHC 211 (Admin) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Lord Justice Underhill (Vice-President of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)) Lord Jus......