R (Sacupima) v Newham London Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 1999 |
| Date | 26 November 1999 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Dyson.
Housing - homelessness - temporary accommodation provided at seaside locations - decisions unlawful as made without regard to individual circumstances
It was unlawful for a London local authority to provide temporary bed and breakfast accommodation at seaside locations as those decisions were taken without regard to the individual circumstances of the homeless applicants.
Mr Justice Dyson so held in the Queen's Bench Division when allowing applications for judicial review by Aurora Sacupima, Emmanuel Kiese, Muzahid Ali, Tekuli Yawalibange, Shamin Akhtar, Helen Roban and Ashikur Rahman of decisions made by Newham London Borough Council.
Mr Jan Luba, Mr Stephen Knafler for the applicants; Mr David Matthias, Mr Steven Woolf for Newham.
LORD JUSTICE DYSON said that the issue was whether the council lawfully discharged the interim duty owed under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996, to provide suitable temporary accommodation pending a decision as to whether it owed a duty to provide suitable long term accommodation under section 193.
Each of the applicants had until becoming homeless been residents in Newham. Each had applied to Newham for the provision of alternative accommodation.
The applicants were informed that the local authority would not be securing accommodation for them in its area, or in any neighbouring area, or in London at all. Instead bed and breakfast accommodation had been secured for them at seaside resorts, such as Great Yarmouth, Brighton and Southend.
All the applicants were on income support and unable to afford the cost of travelling to Newham and were unable to continue with schooling, employment or medical care of themselves of members of their families.
Each applicant had obtained interim orders from the court requiring the provision of accommodation closer to Newham. In each case that was immediately found and provided.
Newham had a policy whereby it only considered temporary bed and breakfast accommodation out of the borough or out of London as unsuitable if there was a "serious reason" for doing so.
Serious reasons in that context existed where there was a "serious risk to the life or health of an applicant, his family or another", if the applicant or his family were to be accommodated outside London.
Serious reasons did not include the fact that an applicant had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- R (Calgin) v Enfield London Borough Council
-
Codona v Mid-Bedfordshire District Council
...J. and Dyson J (as he then was) noted respectively in R v. Newham LBC, ex p. Begum (1999) 32 HLR 808 and R v. Newham LBC, ex p, Sacupima (2001) 33 HLR 1. In ex p. Begum, Collins J said at 816: "… whether or not accommodation is suitable may depend upon how long it is to be occupied and what......
-
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Waltham Forest v Saleh
...the particular household even if it was not ideal. There is some support for this view in the cases. In Sacupima at first instance (see [2001] 33 HLR 1) Dyson J said: “23. Suitability is not an absolute concept. As was said by Henry J. (and has been said in other cases), there can be differ......
-
R (Abdi) v Lambeth LBC
...case that the authority's original decision (i.e. the Section 184 decision) was flawed" ( R v London Borough of Newham ex parte Lumley (2000) 33 HLR 1 at Paragraph 54, per Brooke LJ). The Procedure on Review 11 The various public duties that are imposed and public powers granted in Part VII......