R McDonagh v London Borough of Hounslow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN |
| Judgment Date | 02 March 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] EWHC 511 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/5292/2003 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 02 March 2004 |
[2004] EWHC 511 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Mr Justice Sullivan
CO/5292/2003
MR A PANTON (instructed by Lovell Chohan, Middlesex, TW3 3EB) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MS A CAFFERKEY (instructed by Borough Solicitor Department, The Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow)appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the defendant council in late September early October 2003 that it would not provide accommodation for the claimants' family in Hounslow but would instead provide the family with air tickets to enable them to return to Ireland.
The background of the case is somewhat unusual. The family had originally lived in Isleworth. They were evicted from their home there and decided to go with their children to Dublin. When they left for Dublin they had seven children; they now have nine children.
The family arrived in Dublin in early September 2001 and were provided with accommodation by Dublin City Council. Initially they were housed in bed and breakfast accommodation, but after that they were housed, temporarily, in a private rented house and then they were allocated a 4 bedroom house in Ballyfermot, Dublin in October 2002.
The family returned to London on 2nd July 2003. The following day they presented themselves to the defendant's Homeless Persons Unit. They explained that they had left their accommodation in Dublin because they and their children had suffered racial abuse and harassment whilst living there. In all other respects they accepted that the accommodation itself was suitable for their needs.
The defendant council's housing department provided the family with temporary bed and breakfast accommodation whilst it carried out its inquiries under the Housing Act 1996. In a detailed letter dated 14th August 2003 the housing department explained that it had concluded that although the claimants and their family were homeless and in priority need and did have a local connection with Hounslow, they had made themselves intentionally homeless. The reasons are set out in some detail in the letter dated 14th August 2003 but, in summary, the council concluded that it was not reasonable for the family to have vacated their settled accommodation in Dublin and to have moved to the United Kingdom without having made any suitable arrangements to provide settled accommodation in the United Kingdom.
The allegations of harassment were considered and it was noted that the claimants had not pursued the remedies that were open to them in Dublin. Thus, the council concluded that the claimants were intentionally homeless.
"This is due to you having left your accommodation in Dublin which was available to you and which was reasonable for you and your family to continue to occupy."
The letter stated that accommodation would continue to be provided by the council until Friday, 19th September 2003.
That decision by the council's housing department has never been challenged. There was a request made by the claimants' solicitors for a review out of time. That request was refused on the basis that the request had been made late. There has been no challenge to that decision.
The defendant's Social Services Department became involved. The background to the Social Services Department's decision to offer the family air tickets to return to Dublin is as follows. The Social Services Department assessed the family's needs. It had an assessment that had been carried out by the West London Mental Health NHS Trust of Mr McDonagh. In that assessment Mr McDonagh was noted as saying that he came "from a large Irish travelling family" and that he had been "born and reared in Ireland, travelled around a lot, alternating between houses and caravans". The Social Services Department in Hounslow also had a letter from a social worker at the travellers' section in Dublin City Council which explained the circumstances in which the McDonagh family had been housed in Upper Ballyfermot from Dublin's City Council's housing list in Autumn 2002. It also explained the family's perception of the problems that they had suffered in Upper Ballyfermot. The letter said in part that it was hoped that the family would not be treated on a simple "return to local authority origin basis" because the case was clearly more complex than a voluntary homeless situation.
The assessment of the defendant council's Social Services Department, set out in an initial assessment record, provides a family tree that would indicate that Mrs McDonagh's parents were either born in or had been settled in Manchester and that Mr McDonagh's mother was either born in or settled in Cranford. Otherwise no information is given as to where Mr and Mrs McDonagh were born or indeed where the children were born.
The assessment says under Family History and Function:
"Mr and Mrs McDonagh are from a large Irish Travelling family. Social Services records indicate a dysfunctional family history."
There is then a discussion of the family's reasons for returning to England from Dublin which includes the following.
"Francis Griffen —Travellers Social Worker in Dublin, who worked with the family, was unable to confirm that families allegation of racism. She stated that the family told her they wanted to return to England as they had a large network of family and friends and they felt it was unfair they had been evicted from their previous address (47 Old Pound Close Isleworth). There were no complaints or concerns about the family as tenants in Ireland.
All of the family's difficulties are as a result of their current housing situation. The children's health and educational needs are neglected due to their lack of stability and this is a direct consequence of the family making themselves intentionally homeless."
The recommendations of the social worker were:
"In the light of the investigation and following discussions with my manager the best option for the family is to return to Ireland. Through discussion and reports from other agencies there have been no specific concerns for the children and the allegations of the parents have been unsubstantiated."
There was then a discussion of possible difficulties about travelling back to Ireland and mention was made of the fact that Mrs McDonagh would be able to fly back to Dublin because she was less than 28 weeks pregnant. Past that threshold a medical certificate would have been required. The recommendations concluded:
"We have considered the needs of all the children and in the absence of any evidence with regard to any specific health needs the local authority have no concerns. However, the children are not attending school and do not appear to be registered with a G.P. This situation is due in principle to the parents not providing stability of accommodation to enable the parents to meet these specific needs.
The local authority purchased airline tickets for the whole family (non-refundable) at a significant cost which given the limited resources can ill afford to do. These resources would best be targeted towards local need."
It was noted that the parents did not agree with that recommendation.
When the social workers told the claimants of their decision it is clear that they protested. Their solicitors wrote a number of letters to the council. On 22nd September 2003 the council was told that consideration was being given to challenging the homeless persons decision but the point was made that the immediate concern was for the children. In response, on 24th September, the borough solicitor said:
"Your clients were informed on 14th August of the Local Authority's Homeless Person's decision and have chosen not to lodge their appeal within the time stated. This will be taken into account by Social Services together with the fact that your client has accommodation in Dublin which is available and which was reasonable which was reasonable for her and the children to occupy."
Further letters of protest were written. On 25th September the claimants' solicitors said that Mrs McDonagh had told the social worker that the lives of her children would be in danger if she returned to Dublin, and she refused the offer to return. That letter returned to the homeless persons decision letter dated 14th August and said that a request to extend time had been lodged.
"Although the respective department has declined to extend time as the request was lodged out of time. It is in this regard that we are instructed to take issue with the Homeless Persons Department. In any event there is a change in our client's circumstances and in this regard our client will be entitled to make a fresh application to the Homeless Persons Unit."
As I have mentioned, there was no challenge to the refusal to extend time and no fresh application has been made to the council's Homeless Persons Unit.
The borough solicitor responded:
"We are instructed that following enquiries with Dublin Social Services it was not reasonable for your client to have vacated her accommodation in Dublin and to arrive in the UK without making suitable arrangements to provide settled accommodation for herself and her family. Social Services have satisfied themselves that they have made appropriate enquiries with the Dublin Social Services and given the circumstances of your client's departure from Dublin the Local Authority is prepared to fund the relevant return...
To continue reading
Request your trial