R v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council, ex parte Grillo
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 1995 |
| Date | 11 May 1995 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
NEILL, HIRST AND ROCH, L JJ
Housing – homeless persons – suitability of accommodation – reasonableness – whether any duty to give reasons for refusal of non-statutory appeal on suitability – Housing Act 1985.
The applicant challenged the authority's decision that it had offered her and her family suitable accommodation under its duties to the homeless under the Housing Act 1985. She had been offered a two-bedroom flat on the seventh floor of a block, with a lift which only served the even-numbered floors on the date of her viewing of the property. She appealed under the council's non-statutory appeal procedure citing arthritis and the recent birth of her baby as factors relevant to the problem that the lift serving odd-numbered floors would be out of order for six months. The council rejected her appeal without giving any indication of its reasoning about the difficulties she would face.
Held – dismissing the appeal: (1) It was not unreasonable for the council to have considered the property as not unsuitable for the applicant's needs, in view of the competing claims of other homeless persons, their difficulties, and the extreme shortage of housing to be offered in the area.
(2) There was not yet any general duty to give reasons for administrative decisions generally, nor was there a duty to give reasons in every aspect of the homeless persons legislation. Dictum of Sedley, J in R v Higher Education Funding Council, ex parte Institute of Dental Surgery [1994] 1 WLR 242 approved. Decision in R v Lambeth London Borough Council, ex parte Walters[1994] 2 FCR 336 disapproved.
Statutory provisions referred to:Housing Act 1985, ss 59 and 62 to 70.
Cases referred to in judgment:Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond (1986) 63 ALR 559.
R v Higher Education Funding Council, ex parte Institute of Dental Surgery [1994] 1 WLR 242.
R v Lambeth London Borough Council, ex parte Walters[1994] 2 FCR 336.
R v Home Secretary, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531.
AppealAppeal from decision of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, QC sitting as a deputy High Court Judge.
James Bowen for the applicant.
Anthony Dinkin, QC and Simon Bird for the local authority.
LORD JUSTICE NEILL.This is an appeal by Ms Moriam Grillo from the order dated 1 December 1994 of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Queen's Bench Division. By his order the Judge dismissed the motion of Ms Grillo seeking an order for judicial review of decisions of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (the council) dated 13 July and 27 July 1994 that the accommodation offered to Ms Grillo at 25 Markland House, London W10 was suitable for occupation by Ms Grillo, her partner and their son and that the council had discharged its duty to Ms Grillo under Part III of The Housing Act 1985 (the 1985 Act).
Until 31 July 1993 Ms Grillo was at all material times living with her partner in North Kensington at the home of her partner's mother. In July 1993, however, Ms Grillo and her partner were required to leave the home by 31 July. On being required to leave, Ms Grillo applied to the council for assistance with housing under the provisions of Part III of the 1985 Act.
It will be convenient at this stage to refer to the relevant provisions of the 1985 Act which relate to housing homeless persons. Sections 62 to 70 include provisions setting out the duties of local housing authorities with respect to homelessness and threatened homelessness. Section 62, so far as is material, provides as follows:
"(1) If a person (an `applicant') applies to a local housing authority for accommodation, or for assistance in obtaining accommodation, and the authority have reason to believe that he may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, they shall make such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy themselves as to whether he is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
(2) If they are so satisfied, they shall make any further inquiries necessary to satisfy themselves as to –
(a) whether he has a priority need, and
(b) whether he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally ...."
Section 63 of the 1985 Act imposes an interim duty on local housing authorities to secure that accommodation is made available in cases of apparent priority need while a decision as a result of their inquiries under s 62 is pending. Section 64 of the 1985 Act sets out the obligations of a local housing authority as to the notification to the applicant of their decision on the question of whether he is homeless or threatened with homelessness. So far as is material s 64 provides:
"(1) On completing their inquiries under s.62, the local housing authority shall notify their decision on the question of whether he is homeless or threatened with homelessness.
(2) If they notify him that their decision is that he is homeless or threatened with homelessness, they shall at the same time notify him of their decision on the question whether he has a priority need.
(3) If they notify him that their decision is that he has a priority need, they shall at the same time notify him –
(a) of their decision whether he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, and
(b) whether they have notified or propose to notify another local housing authority under s.67 (referral of application on grounds of local connection).
(4) If the local housing authority notify the applicant –
(a) that they are not satisfied that he is homeless or threatened with homelessness, or
(b) that they are not satisfied that he has a priority need, or
(c) that they are satisfied that he became homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally, or
(d) that they have notified or propose to notify another local housing authority under s.67 (referral of application on grounds of local connection),
they shall at the same time notify him of their reasons."
By s 64(5) it is provided that the notice required to be given under s 64 is to be given in writing.
It is to be noted that a pregnant woman is included among the persons who have a priority need for accommodation: see s 59(1)(a) of the 1985 Act. In July 1993 Ms Grillo was pregnant. She gave birth to a son on 1 February 1994.
On 19 August 1993 the council notified Ms Grillo in accordance with s 64 of the 1985 Act that they were satisfied that she was homeless or threatened with homelessness; that she had a priority need; and that she was not homeless or threatened with homelessness intentionally. In the light of the decision reached by the council certain duties were imposed on them under s 65 of the 1985 Act. So far as is material this section provides:
"(1) This section has effect as regards the duties owed by the local housing authority to an applicant where they are satisfied that he is homeless.
(2) Where they are satisfied that he had a priority need and are not satisfied that be became homeless intentionally, they shall, ... secure that accommodation becomes available for his occupation."
Finally I should refer to s 69 of the 1985 Act (as amended by the Housing and
Planning Act 1986). Section 69(1) (as amended) provides as follows:
"(1) A local housing authority may perform any duty under s.65 or s.68 (duties to person found to be homeless) to secure that accommodation becomes available for the occupation of a person –
(a) by making available suitable accommodation held by them under Part II (provision of housing) or any enactment, or
(b) by securing that he obtains suitable accommodation from some other person, or
(c) by giving him such advice and assistance as will secure that he obtains suitable accommodation from some other person,
and in determining whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah v Sugumar Balakrishnan
-
R (Giles) v Fareham Borough Council
...unless statute requires it or the common law in any particular field has developed a rule to similar effect. In R v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea ROC, ex parte Grillo [1995] 28 HLR 94 at 106, Neill LJ said: "I consider that the court should be careful not to impose legal duties on h......
- Mohamad Hassan Zakaria v Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
-
R v Westminster City Council, ex parte Castelli ; R v Same, ex parte Tristan-Garcia
...Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Antonissen [1991–2] ECR 1-745. R v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council, ex parte Grillo[1996] 2 FCR 56. R v Northavon District Council, ex parte Palmer [1996] 8 Admin LR R v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council, ex parte Garlick[1993] 2 FCR 133. R v ......