Putans v Tower Hamlets LBC

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date20 June 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] EWHC 1634 (Ch)
Docket NumberCase No: CH/2006/APP/0197
CourtChancery Division
Date20 June 2006

[2006] EWHC 1634 (Ch)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Before:

Mr Michael Briggs QC

Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Case No: CH/2006/APP/0197

Between:
Antons Putans
Appellant/Claimant
and
The London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Respondent/Defendant

MR MATTHEW FELDMAN appeared on behalf of the Appellant

MR KELVIN RUTLEDGE and MISS SIAN DAVIES appeared on behalf of the Respondent

Digital Transcript of Wordwave International Limited 183 Clarence Street Kingston-Upon-Thames Surrey KT1 1QT Tel No: 020 8974 7300 Fax No: 020 8974 7301 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

1

This is an appeal from a decision of His Honour Judge Cowell given in the Central London County Court on 3 March 2006, whereby he set aside an injunction previously granted on 20 February 2006 by his Honour Judge Wakefield. That was upon a without notice application by the appellant, Mr Antons Putans, that the respondent, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, continue to accommodate him pending, first, his appeal under section 204(1) of the Housing Act 1996 against Tower Hamlets' decision that he was ineligible for housing assistance under Part 7 of the Act and, secondly, pending his appeal under section 204A of that Act against their decision not to provide him with interim accommodation pending his main appeal.

2

This is therefore an appeal within an appeal within an appeal, but nonetheless of real importance to the parties. It is important to the applicant because he is and has since 20 February 2006 been homeless, literally sleeping on the streets, and will be likely, if His Honour Judge Cowell's judgment stands, to continue to be homeless until the final determination of his main appeal. That is due for its hearing in the County Court in July, but of course there may be at least a possibility of further appeals after that.

3

The case is important for Tower Hamlets because this is the first Housing Act case concerning a national of an A8 state: that is, of one of the eight states which became members of the European Union on 1 May 2004 under an accession regime which, among other things, did not offer their nationals immediate enjoyment of all the rights enjoyed within the European Union by nationals of existing member states.

4

The facts which constitute the background to the issues raised in this appeal are not to any significant extent in issue, and can be summarised as follows. The appellant Mr Putans is a single man and a national of Latvia. He originally came to the United Kingdom in 1999, later returning to Latvia to attend to family matters. Upon his return to the United Kingdom in May 2004, he sought and obtained employment as a cleaner of trains with Carlisle Group Facilities Services.

5

His contract of employment began on 27 September 2004. On 9 December 2004 he registered that employment under the Accession State Worker Registration Scheme and was issued with a registration card numbered 112241. The accompanying letter from the Home Office stated: "This certificate expires on the date you cease working for the specified employer." I shall have to say more about the Accession State Worker Registration Scheme in due course.

6

The appellant's employment ceased on 19 May 2005 due to ill health. He was admitted to St Clements Hospital on 22 July 2005, and he has not worked since. I am informed, on instructions, that the appellant now considers himself well enough to work and is actively seeking work but so far without success.

7

He applied to Tower Hamlets as homeless on 28 September 2005. Tower Hamlets decided in a letter of 29 September that he was ineligible for housing assistance under Part 7 of the Housing Act. A request made on the appellant's behalf for a review of that decision led to the decision being confirmed in a letter from the assistant assessment manager of Tower Hamlets, dated 20 October 2005.

8

Mr Putans then brought an appeal against that decision, pursuant to section 204(1) of the Housing Act and in a letter of 11 November 2005, he was advised that Tower Hamlets would provide accommodation for him pending the appeal, once discharged from hospital, as he might not be able to pursue the appeal once homeless. Later however, in a letter of 10 February 2006, following a recent judgment, Tower Hamlets resiled from that stance, stating that it had no power to accommodate Mr Putans and that accordingly his accommodation would be withdrawn with effect from 20 February 2006 but that Tower Hamlets would, if he wished, fund his return to Latvia.

9

On 20 February 2006, the appellant issued an appeal against that refusal of interim accommodation under section 204A of the Housing Act 1996. On the same day, on a without notice application, he sought and obtained an injunction that his accommodation be continued pending appeal.

10

The substantive section 204 appeal, which I shall refer to as the main appeal, was due to be heard at Bow County Court on 1 February 2006 with an agreed time estimate of one day. That hearing was switched to the Wandsworth County Court, whereupon the estimate was amended to two days. The case was then transferred to the Central London County Court and the hearing was provisionally fixed for 27 and 28 March 2006. However that was again vacated by consent because of the then imminent judgment of the Court of Appeal in another case, to which I shall have to refer in due course, which was considered to be of relevance to Mr Putans's case. The substantive appeal is now due to be held on 3 and 4 July 2006 and, in all probability before His Honour Judge Cowell. The appeal to this court from Judge Cowell's setting aside of the injunction was ordered on 16 May 2006 to be expedited, by Rimer J.

11

The only issue which has been argued before me is the question whether Tower Hamlets has the power to accommodate Mr Putans pending the final determination of his main appeal. His Honour Judge Cowell decided that Tower Hamlets did not have that power. I should record that the Tower Hamlets' position, if it did have that power, is that it probably would accommodate Mr Putans, subject to a further review of his needs. In order to understand the power issue, it is necessary for me to describe the relevant statutory framework in some detail.

12

Subject to the questions, firstly, whether the appellant has relevant rights under the EU treaties which entitle him to accommodation pending appeal, and secondly whether the relevant domestic delegated legislation is in part incompatible with such EU rights, the identity and effect of the domestic legislation, though extremely complicated, is common ground. In that context, I would like to express my gratitude to counsel on both sides, who have, both in their skeletons and in their oral submissions, made what one of them described as a fiendishly complex area of law intelligible to a newcomer like me.

13

I can describe the statutory framework, in particular with assistance from the skeleton argument of counsel for the respondent Tower Hamlets, on the basis that the description which I am about to give is common ground.

14

Firstly, the relevant provisions of the Housing Act 1996. They are to be found in Part 7 of that Act. Section 184(1) provides that if a person applies to a local housing authority for assistance and if the authority has reason to believe that he may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, they shall make such inquires as are necessary to satisfy themselves (a) whether he is eligible for assistance and (b) if so, whether any duty, and if so what duty, is owed to him under Part 7 of the Act.

15

Section 184(3) provides that on completing their inquiries the authority shall notify the applicant of their decision and, so far as any issue is decided against his interests, inform him of their reasons.

16

Under section 202(1)(a) an applicant has the right to request a review of any decision of the local housing authority as to his eligibility for assistance. The procedure is set out in section 203 and in regulations published under it.

17

Under section 188(3) a local housing authority has the power to accommodate the applicant pending a decision on a review. Under section 204(1) an applicant who is dissatisfied with the decision on the review may appeal to the County Court on any point of law arising from the review decision.

18

Under section 204(4), where the local authority were under a duty to accommodate at some past date, they are empowered to continue to do so (a) during the period for appealing under this section against the authority's decision and (b) if an appeal is brought, until the appeal and any further appeal is finally determined.

19

It is common ground that there was at least a very short period of time when Tower Hamlets were under such a duty, so as to engage section 204(4). Section 204A applies where an applicant has the right of appeal to the County Court against a local authority's decision on a review. Subsection 204A(2) provides that if the applicant is dissatisfied with a decision by the authority (a) not to exercise their power under section 204(4) in his case, (b) to exercise that power for a limited period ending before the determination by the County Court of his appeal under Section 204(1), the main appeal, or (c) to cease exercising that power before that time, he may appeal to the County Court against the decision.

20

Subsection (4) then defines the appeal court's powers under subsection (2). The court (a) may order the authority to secure that accommodation is available for the applicant's occupation until the determination of the appeal or such earlier time as the court may specify and (b) shall confirm or quash the decision appealed against. In considering whether to confirm or quash the decision, the court shall apply the principles applied in the High Court on an application for judicial review.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Eleonora Konodyba v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 20 July 2012
    ...Mr Stack made reference to, and relied upon, the decision of Mr Briggs QC (now Briggs J) in Putans v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2007] HLR 10 (" Putans") to the effect that "retained" worker status did not extend to A8 nationals during the Accession period. Dr Konodyba 8 Judge McMullen......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT