R (Price) v Carmarthenshire CC
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice NEWMAN |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 42 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/3331/02 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 24 January 2003 |
[2003] EWHC 42 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice Newman
Case No: CO/3331/02
Stephen Knafler (instructed byCommunity Law Partnership) for the Claimant
Tim Mould (instructed by Carmarthenshire County Council) for the Defendant
1. This case raises some important points in connection with the proper approach to be taken by housing authorities taking enforcement measures against travellers or gypsies.
2. The claimant is an Irish Traveller who is presently living with her family in caravans stationed on an area of public open space known as Prince Charles' Gardens, Llanelli. The defendant authority owns the Gardens. The claimant's occupation of the Garden site arises out of a compromise which she and the defendant authority entered into when settling proceedings taken by the defendant under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to secure her removal from another site where she was trespassing, namely Delta Lake. In fulfilment of that agreement the claimant and her family were able to station their caravans at the Gardens for a period of 28 days ending on 7 th July 200The common intention behind the compromise was that in the meantime both parties would seek to identify a suitable, more permanent caravan site for the claimant and her family. The defendant has endeavoured to find such accommodation but it has not succeeded in doing so.
3. On the 11 th April 2002 the claimant by her solicitors had applied to the defendant as the local housing authority for accommodation pursuant to Part V11 of the Housing Act 1996 (the 1996 Act). The solicitors stated:
“She does not wish to be considered for settled accommodation, as having been a Traveller all her life she does not feel that she could live in settled accommodation, which would be alien to her culture and lifestyle.”
The defendant accepted a duty under the Act to secure that accommodation was available for occupation by the claimant and her family. On the 2 nd July 2002 the defendant offered the claimant a three bedroomed house at 19 School Road, Morfa Road, Llanelli and gave notice that the claimant could no longer continue to occupy the Garden site and that, in the event she refused the offer of accommodation, eviction proceedings would be commenced in the County Court. The defendant explained that the offer was intended to provide the claimant and her family with temporary accommodation until such time as a suitable permanent caravan pitch became available. The letter stated:
“(e) That whilst your client expresses a wish not to live in a house, it is the view of the council that on the facts of this case it does not amount to a cultural aversion. Your client's mother lives in a house, and your client's sister has, until recently, resided in a house. Therefore in terms of your client's family culture there is a clear acceptance that conventional housing is a suitable form of accommodation.”
The claimant rejected the offer of accommodation at 19 School Road because it was accommodation in a house and because she has a strong aversion to living in a house, and sought a review of the decision.
4. It is the defendant's decision to evict and to uphold that decision on a review held on the 4 th October 2002, which is the decision under challenge. The claimant has also exercised her statutory right of appeal on a point of law to the County Court pursuant to Section 204 of the 1996 Act. That appeal is still pending. Nevertheless the defendant does not dispute that it is appropriate in the particular circumstances of this case for this court to proceed to hear the claimant's application for judicial review which turns on the same issue. The defendant is anxious to resolve the issue as to the validity of its decision to evict the claimant from the Garden site as soon as possible. It accepts in order to resolve that issue it is necessary for this court to decide whether its offer to the claimant of the house at 19 School Road was a proper discharge of its duty to the claimant under Section 193 of the 1996 Act. It follows that the lawfulness of the eviction proceedings are dependent upon the resolution of the same issue.
5. It is not the first time judicial consideration has been given to the specific issue (see the judgment of Mr Justice Burton in Clarke v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and Regions and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council [2001] EWHC Admin 800 [2002] JPL 552 and the same case in the Court of Appeal [2002] EWCA civ 819 [2002] JPL 1365.
6. In the case of Clarke, Mr Justice Burton had to consider the implications for gypsy and Romany culture as it arose in connection with a planning application. The learned judge decided, and the Court of Appeal upheld his decision in this respect, that the planning inspector's conclusion had not been clear as to whether a settled and immutable antipathy to conventional housing rooted in gypsy culture was to be given consideration and further he was unclear in his reasoning as to how the findings he did make about Mr Clarke's attitude impacted on the problem he had to resolve. In summarising the impact of gypsy culture in the planning sphere the judge identified some eight matters which he considered significant. In paragraph 34 of his judgment he stated as follows:
“Seventhly, if such be established then, in my judgment, bricks and mortar, if offered, are unsuitable, just as would be the offer of a rat infested barn. It would be contrary to Articles 8 and 14 to expect such a person to accept conventional housing and to hold it against him or her that he has not accepted it, or is not prepared to accept it, even as a last resort factor.”
In its written reasons, given on the review, the defendant carefully analysed the judge's decision and separated out five matters which it regarded itself as having to consider when determining whether or not conventional housing was suitable for a gypsy.
1. Whether the applicant and if relevant his family lived in a caravan.
2. Whether they were Romany or subscribed to a gypsy culture.
3. Whether they were itinerant or nomadic for a substantial portion of the year.
4. Whether itinerancy was linked to their livelihood.
5. Whether they subscribed to the relevant features of the gypsy life in question, such as aversion to conventional housing.
Questions 1 and 2 were answered positively. Mrs Price was living in a caravan and it is accepted she is an Irish Traveller and that she is a gypsy. As to question 3 it was noted that the claimant had not left the Llanelli area for some time but nevertheless it was recognised it was not necessary for her to have a nomadic lifestyle in order to retain a gypsy status. As to 4, the question of her livelihood was not regarded as of significance, and as to 5 it was concluded:
“That the most important factor in determining whether or not a council house was suitable for Mrs Price, was whether or not she had a ‘cultural aversion’ to conventional housing as a result of being a gypsy.”
7. In answering this question the defendant had regard to some objective material which discloses that a general antipathy can exist among gypsies and travellers to bricks and mortar accommodation, but also many gypsy families do reside in council housing. Next, it was recognised that the decision had to be made according to the merits of a particular case. The written decision contains the following:
“The meeting then went on to consider the evidence relating to the existence of a cultural aversion. They noted that Mrs Price had been saying since April that she had a cultural aversion to housing. However, she had previously expressed an interest in conventional housing. At the council's customer service centre on the 24 th October 2001, she had indicated she would be contacting Gwalia housing as there was a house available at 5 Caer Elms and she wished to be considered for it. In addition, she had provided the council with a doctor's letter in October 2001 in support of her application for housing.”
It is critical to this challenge to set out the balance of the reasoning of the defendant:
“Mrs Price had not expressed any aversion to conventional housing when seeking accommodation in October 2001, and it was felt she would have made this known —and not expressed an interest in conventional housing —last year, if she had a cultural aversion. On that basis, it was decided that Mrs Price did not have a cultural aversion to conventional housing in October 2001, and the officers did not accept that she had developed an aversion since that date. Therefore, they were of the view that Mrs Price does not have a genuine, cultural aversion to conventional housing and were satisfied that the council house she had been offered was suitable for Mrs Price and her family.”
8. This decision is central to the case and requires analysis.
9. There are a number of decisions in the housing sphere from which a certain number of non-contentious principles can be extracted. In particular in paragraphs 17 – 25 of the judgment of Mr Justice Dyson, in The Queen v Newham London Borough Council ex parte Sacupima (2001) 33 HLR 1. Firstly, suitability is not an absolute concept. There can be different standards of suitability. But whilst there may be suitable accommodation on the spectrum between ideal accommodation or accommodation which is just adequate to meet housing needs it must be recognised that there was a minimum standard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Codona v Mid-Bedfordshire District Council
...to living in conventional bricks and mortar accommodation, R (on the application of Margaret Price) v Carmathenshire County Council [2003] EWHC 42 (Admin). In that case, unlike this, the main issue was whether the gypsy applicant had an aversion to bricks and mortar accommodation. But Newma......
-
Sheridan and Others v Basildon Borough Council (formerly Basildon District Council)
...to the process of Article 8 and the decision of Newman J in R (on the application of Margaret Price) v Carmathenshire County Council [2003] EWHC 42 (Admin); another case involving the provision of housing accommodation for an Irish traveller with a cultural aversion to bricks and mortar: "4......
-
R (Lee) v Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council
...'accommodation' must now be considered in the light of the decision in R (Margaret Price) v Camarthenshire County Council [2003] EWHC 42 (Admin), a copy of which we enclose for your ease of reference. This case makes clear that a local authority dealing with a homelessness application from ......
-
Surrey Heath Borough Council v Rooney & Others
...also referred to and adopted the reasoning of Newman J in R (on the application of Margaret Price) v Carmarthenshire County Council [2003] EWHC 42 (Admin) in which the judge had pointed to the importance of the cultural connection, but did also say that the practical application of the spec......