R (Giles) v Fareham Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE DEPUTY JUDGE |
| Judgment Date | 13 December 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWHC 2951 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/2960/2002 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 13 December 2002 |
[2002] EWHC 2951 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand London WC2
M Supperstone Qc
(Sitting As A Deputy High Court Judge)
CO/2960/2002
ROBERT DUDDRIDGE (instructed by Andrew & Andrew, Atlantic House, 114 Kingston Crescent, Portsmouth, PO2 8AL) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
PHILIP GLEN (instructed by Fareham Borough Council, Director of Finance and Resources, Civic Offices, Civic Way, Fareham, PO16 7PU) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
Mrs Giles challenges the allocations policy of Fareham Borough Council in respect of applicants for housing under part VI of the Housing Act 1996, and a decision of the defendant council made on 14th March 2002, and notified to her by letter dated 18th March 2002, to defer allocating accommodation for her and her family for a period of five years from 16th January 2000, following the grant of permission to apply for judicial review by Wilson J.
The factual background to the present application is summarised in paragraphs 5 to 15 of the claimant's grounds for seeking judicial review in the following terms:
"5. The Claimant and her husband were formerly tenants of Oakfern Housing Association in Basingstoke. On 5th November 1999 the Housing Association obtained an outright possession order against them on the grounds of neighbour nuisance. That nuisance included the following:
(1) Mr Giles sent indecent and grossly offensive letters to a neighbour. He was convicted for offences arising out of this conduct at Basingstoke Magistrates Court on 28th October 1997;
(2) In October 1997 Mr Giles used a public address system to broadcast a message about a neighbour that was indecent and threatening. He was prosecuted for offences arising out of this but proceedings were stopped when evidence was found to be missing;
(3) Mr and Mrs Giles had erected a fence in front of their property, which obstructed the rights of way of neighbours. They were ordered to remove the fence on 21st July 1997, but failed to do so.
"6. The possession order on 5th November 1999 was made following a trial of the proceedings. In his judgment, the trial judge found Mr Giles' conduct proved (although Mr Giles denied it), and that Mrs Giles knew of and was complicit in her husband's conduct.
"7. On 16th January 2000 Mrs Giles applied to the Defendant for assistance under both Part VII (homelessness) and Part VI (allocations) of the Act. By a decision letter dated 28th July 2000, the Defendant found the Claimant and her husband intentionally homeless. The Claimant sought a review of that decision, and then appealed to the County Court. The Circuit Judge who heard the appeal dismissed it, and found that the Council was entitled to conclude that the Claimant had been acting together with her husband in the conduct referred to above.
"8. Since her eviction in January 2000, the Claimant has been living in Bed and Breakfast accommodation with two of her children: Damion (aged 12 or 13) and Eileen (aged 10 or 11). They are presently living at the Roundabout Hotel in Fareham. The Claimant has separated from her husband, who is living at another address with his daughter.
"9. Damion suffers from cerebral palsy and epilepsy and has severe learning difficulties. Hampshire County Council Social Services are paying for the Claimant and the children to live at the Roundabout Hotel. However, this type of accommodation is wholly unsuitable for a child with Damion's needs. The Claimant has made sustained efforts to find housing in the private sector, without success, and therefore will be dependent upon the Defendant's assistance under Part VI of the Act.
"10. In their decision letter dated 28th July 2000, finding that the Claimant was intentionally homeless, the Defendant drew attention to the possibility of joining their Housing Register. The letter went on to state:
'You should also be aware that your application may be deferred from receiving an offer for between one and five years in light of the decision on your homelessness application and the reason for the loss of your home with Oakfern Housing Association. After this time you will then have to wait your turn for an offer within the normal points scheme.'
"11. By letter dated 9th August 2001, the Defendant notified the Claimant that she had 120 points (for priority within the Housing Register) pending medical assessment. By further letter dated 5th September 2001, The defendant notified the Claimant that she had been awarded 25 additional points, bringing her total to 145.
"12. On 26th September 2001, the Claimant's solicitors wrote to the Defendant raising queries as to whether they had accorded her a reasonable preference in accordance with each of the statutory criteria applying to the Claimant. The Defendant replied by letter dated 23rd October 2001, stating as follows:
'I have been made aware of the fact that you were found intentionally homeless on 28th July 2000 and, as you have previously been advised, any further applications would be subject to a period of deferral.
'Consequently your new Housing Waiting application will be deferred from receiving an offer of accommodation for a period of five years.'
This letter was the first notification to the Claimant that a decision had been taken to defer her allocation, and of the period of that deferment. The only previous reference to deferment was in the letter dated 28th July 2000, stating that her application 'may' be deferred.
"13. Following correspondence from the Claimant's solicitors, one Mr Howell of the Defendant wrote to the Claimant on 23rd January 2002. In that letter, he confirmed the decision to defer allocation for 5 years. The letter contained a number of errors …
"14. Following further correspondence from the Claimant's solicitors, the Defendant's Director of Housing, Mr Blackburn, agreed to refer the matter to a Housing Committee for review. Mr Blackburn prepared a report for the Committee which contained a recommendation that the allocation of accommodation be deferred for five years, and rehearsed the material history of the case, including his concerns about the letter of Mr Howell referred to above.
"15. The Housing Committee met on 14th March 2002. By letter dated 18th March 2002, Mr Blackburn notified the Claimant of the Committee's decision. The material part of the letter is as follows:
'The Committee resolved that you will be deferred for a period of five years … until 16 January 2005.
… in one year's time the Council's Executive are recommended to review your case again.'"
The defendant's duties relating to the allocation of accommodation are set out in part VI of the Act. The material statutory provisions are as follows:
"159(1) A local housing authority shall comply with the provisions of this Part in allocating housing accommodation.
"159(7) Subject to the provisions of this Part, a local housing authority may allocate housing accommodation in such manner as they consider appropriate.
"161(1) A local housing authority shall allocate housing accommodation only to persons ('qualifying persons') who are qualified to be allocated housing accommodation by that authority.
"161(4) Subject to subsection (2) and any regulations under subsection (3) a local housing authority may decide what classes for persons are, or are not, qualifying persons.
"162(1) Every local housing authority shall establish and maintain a register of qualifying persons (their 'housing register').
"164(1) If a local housing authority decide-
(a) not to put a person on their housing register who has applied to be put on, or
(b) to remove a person from their housing register otherwise than at his request,
they shall notify him of their decision and of the reasons for it.
(2) The notice shall also inform him of his right to request a review of the decision and of the time within which such a request must be made.
(3) A request for review must be made before the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which he is notified of the authority's decision and reasons, or such longer period as the authority may in writing allow.
"165(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations as to the procedure to be followed in connection with a review under section 164.
"167(1) Every local housing authority shall have a scheme (their 'allocation scheme') for determining priorities, and as to the procedure to be followed, in allocating housing accommodation. For this purpose 'procedure' includes all aspects of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King (on the application of Carly Jayne Willott) v Eastbourne Borough Council
...on certain other reported cases. I derive no assistance from the inconclusive and obiter statement contained in R (Giles) v Fareham BC [2003] HLR 36, at [9]. Similarly, I find nothing in R (Elias) v Secretary of State for Defence [2005] IRLR 788 2, a race relations case, illuminating the co......
-
R Sara Hillsden v Epping Forest District Council
...on certain other reported cases. I derive no assistance from the inconclusive and obiter statement contained in R (Giles) v Fareham BC [2003] HLR 36, at [9]. Similarly, I find nothing in R (Elias) v Secretary of State for Defence [2005] IRLR 788, a race relations case, illuminating the corr......