Peake v London Borough of Hackney
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Lewis |
| Judgment Date | 11 July 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 2528 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB/2013/0165 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 11 July 2013 |
[2013] EWHC 2528 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Lewis
Case No: QB/2013/0165
Miss Kerry Bretherton (instructed by the LB of Hackney Community Law Centre) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr Rory Clark (instructed by Legal Services, Hackney) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Approved Judgment
This is an appeal against a decision of His Honour Judge Cryan, sitting in the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court on 11 th March 2013 whereby he refused an application by Miss Peake for permission to bring an appeal out of time under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996.
The background is this. Miss Peake had an assured short-hold tenancy of property at 4 Sissinghurst Close in Lewisham, London. She lived there with her three young children. In about December 2009 she went to Grenada where her partner now lives. She returned to the United Kingdom in early 2010 and surrendered the tenancy. Later, Miss Peake returned from Grenada and she and the three children lived with her mother.
She applied to the London Borough of Hackney for housing on the grounds that she was threatened with homelessness and had a priority need and was not intentionally homeless. She contended that she was entitled to be provided with accommodation and under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.
The Council rejected that application on the grounds that she was intentionally homeless. She applied for a review of that decision under s.202 of the Housing Act 1996. The review officer upheld that decision however, and concluded that Miss Peake had become intentionally homeless by surrendering her tenancy at 4 Sissinghurst Gardens.
The decision is contained in a letter dated 30 th November 2012, which Miss Peake received on 4 th December 2012. The last paragraph of the letter said this:
"Under s.204 of the Housing Act 1996, as amended by the Homelessness Act 2002, if you are dissatisfied with the decision contained within this letter you can appeal to the County Court on a point of law. Any such appeal must be lodged within 21 days of notification of this letter."
That paragraph reflects the statutory provisions governing appeals. Section 204 is headed "Right of appeal to County Court on point of Law." The material provisions are as follows, s.204 (1) provides:
"(1) If an applicant who has requested a review under section 202—
(a) is dissatisfied with the decision on the review, or
(b) is not notified of the decision on the review within the time prescribed under section 203, he may appeal to the county court on any point of law arising from the decision or, as the case may be, the original decision.
(2) An appeal must be brought within 21 days of his being notified of the decision or, as the case may be, of the date on which he should have been notified of a decision on review.
(2A)The court may give permission for an appeal to be brought after the end of the period allowed by subsection (2), but only if it is satisfied —
(a) Where permission is sought before the end of that period, that there is a good reason for the applicant to be unable to bring the appeal in time; or
(b) Where permission is sought after that time, that there was a good reason for the applicant's failure to bring the appeal in time and for any delay in applying for permission."
Miss Peake did not appeal within 21 days. Her grounds of appeal were lodged on 15 th January 2013. As a result the Court could give permission to bring the appeal only if it was satisfied of the matters in s.204(2A)(b), that is, only if it was satisfied that there was good reason for her failure to bring the appeal in time and there was good reason for any delay in applying for permission.
Miss Peake applied for permission to bring the appeal out of time. The reasons and the evidence in support of the application are contained in a notice dated 15 th January 2013. It explains that the applicant was seeking an extension of time, because on receipt of the review decision she was attempting to find privately rented accommodation through estate agents, but many would not accept her, because she was in receipt of housing benefit. She also looked into a loan from the Job Centre to fund a deposit, but that was not successful. The second week after receipt of the review decision, between 17 th and 21 st December 2012, the Applicant was on a Back to Work scheme and could not take steps in relation to the appeal. During the Christmas holiday week commencing 24 th December 2012 the Appellant approached Crisis at Christmas and they referred her to the Community Law Centre. The notice says that Miss Peake contends that there is a good reason for the short delay in lodging this appeal and for seeking permission to extend time and that she made other efforts to resolve the position, was not available for one week due to the Back to Work Scheme and was referred to solicitors when the Law Centre re-opened after the Christmas or New Year break.
The evidence before the judge included a witness statement from Miss Peake dated 5 th March 2013 and she said this at paragraph 9 and 19:
"In any event, after receiving the second decision I tried to secure a solicitor to help me. I also tried to look at ways of renting privately. I also had to attend a Back to Work course for a week and the whole period was one of trying to care for my children, organise my life, worry about accommodation."
And at paragraph 19 Miss Peake says this:
"I would kindly ask the Court to allow the appeal out of time. I had problems getting hold of a solicitor who could help, partly because of the time of year and partly because I thought I could sort privately rented accommodation out myself. I was given the impression that this could be done. I did not realise how difficult it is to find somewhere in Hackney. If the appeal is allowed to continue I would kindly ask the Court to ask the Council to accommodate me until the full hearing makes a decision on my case."
Miss Peake has produced another witness statement, which was not before the judge and has applied to have that adduced in evidence on this appeal. There has been no objection from the Respondent to that course of action and I therefore grant permission for the second witness statement of Miss Peake, dated 19 th March 2013 to be admitted. The relevant paragraphs say this at 12 and 13:
"Finally, I want to add one more thing, which I think is important and something which I had not put in my original witness statement for the County Court. I had instructed Duncan Lewis, Solicitors, with regard to immigration issues. They had been instructed, because of the situation that had faced my partner. I contacted them by phone as I hoped that they would be able to help me with my housing problem after the intentionally homeless decision. My immigration solicitor advised me that he would pass the details onto their housing department. After three or four days I called them back and the information had not been forwarded. I was then told when I called Duncan Lewis, Solicitors, again that I would then get a call back in 24 hours. I am still awaiting for that call. This further delayed me in reacting to the decision of the Council.")
The application was dealt with by His Honour Judge Cryan on 11 th March 2013. The judge first dealt with the date by which the appeal should have been brought. He set out the terms of s.204(2). He said that the notice was received on 4 th December. The appeal should have been lodged within 21 days. That is, it should have been lodged by 25 th December, that is Christmas Day. The judge was well aware of the difficulties of lodging the appeal on 25 th December and indeed, of the difficulties in doing anything during the week between Christmas and the New Year as appears from paragraph 3 of his decision.
As the appeal had not been brought in time the judge then turned to the discretion to extend time. He set out the material provision that is, s.204(2A)(b). He summarised the factual position at paragraphs 5 and 6 and said this:
"5. The first week of the 21 days seems to have been a time when the Applicant was caught up on a course. The next period leading up to Christmas Day she tried to find accommodation by some other route for herself and her children. It was not until the point of Christmas itself that she first decided to seek a solicitor in relation to this matter from the charity "Crisis at Christmas." Obviously at that point she had cut things extremely fine. Similarly obviously there was nothing that could be done in terms of lodging matters with the Court at that time. Eventually, she saw the charity Shelter…"
Pausing there, that should be the Hackney Community Law Centre.
"…on Wednesday, 2 nd January. The solicitor she saw through [Hackney Community Law Centre] moved relatively swiftly to instruct experienced counsel, Miss Bretherton, in the matter. She was instructed on about 7 th or 8 th January, which was the following Monday or Tuesday and with characteristic efficiency she produced grounds of appeal and the appeal was lodged on 15 th January."
The judge was aware that the appeal was strictly 20 or 21 days out of time, but he did note the problems with lodging over the Christmas and New Year period and he said that in broad terms the appeal was two weeks late. In other words, he made an allowance for the difficulties of taking legal steps over the week of the holiday period.
He then dealt with the application to bring...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abdullah Al Ahmed v The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets
...which, in my judgment, does not need elaboration”. That approach was followed by Lewis J in Peake v London Borough of Hackney [2013] EWHC 2528 (QB) and by Jay J in Poorsalehy v London Borough of Wandsworth [2013] EWHC 3687 (QB). In the latter case Jay J added at [16] that “good reason is ......