R v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte Walters
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | SIR LOUIS BLOM-COOPER,RE |
| Judgment Date | 06 September 1993 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1993] EWHC J0906-2 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 06 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | No: CO-151-93 |
[1993] EWHC J0906-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Before: Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC
No: CO-151-93
MR R GORDON (instructed by Messrs Anthony Gold Lerman & Muirhead,) appeared on behalf of the Applicant. MR M MAGLOIRE (instructed by the London Borough of Lambeth) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
( )
Monday 6th September 1993.
At the completion of the hearing of this application for judicial review on 13 July 1993 I held that the application succeeded, reserving the reasons for my decision and the nature of any relief to be granted to a later date. That date is today.
The application for judicial review raises an important question affecting the development of public law in relation to the administration of the homelessness legislation —namely, whether, in deciding any issue under Part III of the Housing Act 1985 which affects the rights and interests of the applicant as a homeless person, the local housing authority must give its reasons for all those decisions which fall outside the statutory requirement to give reasons under Section 64(4) of the Housing Act 1985. The specific question is related to the manner in which the local authority handled the medical aspects of the applicant's case. That aspect gives rise to the other important question in these proceedings.
The application challenges the decision of the London Borough of Lambeth on 21 October 1992 to dismiss the applicant's appeal against the offer of a tenancy of 5 Maskall Close, St. Martins Estate, London, SW2. The applicant also seeks to prevent the local authority from proceeding to evict her, or remove her from temporary accommodation at 1A Wimbart Road, Tulse Hill, London SW2 where she has been living since March 1992. The impugned decision-letter of 21 October 1992 stated:
2-7 Town Hall Parade
Brixton Hill
London
SW2 1RP
071-926-1000
21/10/92 Ms WALTER
1 WIMBART ROAD
BRIXTON HILL
SW2 2AR
Dear Ms WALTER
Application Reference No.0611576
NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 64 OF THE HOUSING ACT 1985 PART III
Further to our letter of 23.07.92* accepting a duty to rehouse you, we write to inform you that the Council has now fulfilled that duty.
The Council's duty was to secure that accommodation was made available for your occupation. This was done in offering you the tenancy of 5 MASKALL CLOSE, ST MARTINS ESTATE, SW2 3PH.
The Council is satisfied that the offer was suitable and accordingly has discharged its duties.
Advice and assistance is available from the Housing Advice Centre, 2-7 Town Hall Parade, Brixton Hill, SW2.
Yours sincerely,
A. Simpson
pp PRINCIPAL HOUSING ASSESSMENT OFFICER
*The date would appear to be 23 June 1992
THE FACTS
The applicant is an unmarried mother of a 4 year-old boy. She is not in employment, for the very reason that she looks after her child, who unfortunately suffers from spina bifida. The child can walk only with difficulty, using splints and a supportive brace; he is regularly incontinent; his immune system is very low; and he frequently catches cold, a feature of his physical condition that necessitates good domestic heating.
The applicant became homeless in late 1987, some months before the birth of her child. She approached the Homeless Persons Unit on 10 April 1989. Pursuant to its duties under Section 63, the local authority secured temporary accommodation for the applicant and, latterly, for her son at different addresses, culminating in her residence at 1A Wimbart Road. On 23 June 1992 the local authority served a Notice on the Applicant under Section 64, stating that the applicant was homeless, in priority need and was unintentionally homeless.
In purported discharge, therefore, of its duty to rehouse the applicant and her son, the local authority, on 20 August 1992, offered the accommodation at 5 Maskall Close. The applicant inspected the flat on two occasions later that month. She found the flat suitable, save for one important, perceived defect. The only heating in the flat was one gas-heater in the living room. Due to the general frailty of her son, the applicant considered central heating, which she had experienced in temporary accommodation at 1A Wimbart Road, was essential to her and her son's needs.
On 11 September 1992 she obtained a letter from her general practitioner, Dr. Munden, in support of her contention that the inadequate heating rendered the accommodation unsuitable. Dr Munden stated, among other things, that the applicant's housing needs called for "a properly heated flat throughout". On 24 September 1992 the local authority wrote in the following terms:
"Dear Ms. Walter
Thank you for your letter requesting a nomination to a housing association, and also enclosed was a medical letter from Doctor Munden, dated 11 September 1992.
You will be aware that a medical assessment was carried out on your son, because of his medical condition, and that you were notified of that decision in my letter dated 24 July, 1992. Based on this assessment the property of 5 Maskall Close was offered to you on the 20 August 1992.
If you feel that this property is unsuitable, it is suggested that you contact Roupel Neighbourhood Housing Office and initiate an appeal. Should you require assistance, the staff at this office will give you every assistance.
At present I am unable to consider your request to be nominated to a housing association until the outcome of the appeal is known.
Yours sincerely,
Ms.J. DICKENS
Assessment Officer"
So far as the applicant was concerned, the local authority did not, at any time, have her son examined by its own medical adviser; nor did it obtain any medical records pertaining to her son's condition before dismissing her appeal against the alleged suitability of the offered accommodation, and there is no evidence that she was even notified of a "decision in my letter of 24 July 1992". The local authority, a month later, refused the appeal in the impugned decision-letter of 21 October 1992 to which I referred earlier in this judgment. That letter makes no reference to the medical aspect of the dispute over the suitability of the accommodation. Nor does it give any reasons for the assertion that "the offer was suitable".
Ms Dorothy Quest, the local authority's Principal Housing Assessment Manager, has sworn an affidavit, dated 30 March 1993, in the course of which she stated (paragraph 10):
"The applicant's child's medical condition was taken into consideration when in assessing the case, the Council forwarded the child's medical condition to the Council's medical officer for advice. The medical officer observed that in view of the child's condition the accommodation offered should be without the need to climb stairs and dry."
Ms Quest went on to explain why, (paragraph 11) in the circumstances of the applicant's case, accommodation with central heating was not provided:
"When such observations are made, the Council would offer central heating if suitable centrally heated property is available. However, the requirement in so far as the Council is concerned is that suitable premises would have to be accommodation which is dry, but not having any trace of damp or condensation and having in good repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of gas and electricity in order to enable the dwelling to be heated adequately and properly.
The issue as to whether accommodation is heated properly and/or adequately is a matter for the tenant once the Council has provided in good working order gas and electricity points for the connection of gas or electricity heaters. May I also add that where the Council provides central heating the rent of the premises will reflect that fact. As I have deposed herein I hold and verily believe that the living room contains a gas fire and there were facilities in the other rooms for connecting gas and/or electric heaters.
I understand why the applicant believes that a centrally heated flat would be preferable. However, I do not believe that an offer of dry and well decorated accommodation can be an unreasonable offer because it lacks central heating. I can also say that only 50% of Council accommodation is centrally heated. I verily believe that the offer of No. 5 Maskall House which is a 2 bedroomed flat, dry and well decorated with all installations in good working order was a suitable and reasonable offer in this case."
To complete the chronology of events, the local authority caused to be issued a Notice to Quit the temporary accommodation. The Summons for possession was issued by the Lambeth County Court, returnable for 23 February 1993. On 18 February 1993 leave to apply for judicial review had been granted by Tucker J, on consideration of the documents only.
Mr Richard Gordon, on behalf of the applicant, makes a number of submissions which, in my judgment, can be reduced to two main grounds for his successful challenge. Frist, the manner in which the local authority handled the medical aspects of the applicant's case —which, I should add, was central to her rejection of the offered accommodation —was in a number of respects, unfair. Secondly, the absence of any reasons from the decision-letter of 21 October 1992 was likewise unfair. Before I develop my reasons for holding that the application for judicial review succeeds on both grounds, I should set out here Mr. Magloire's valiant efforts to sustain the local authority's...
To continue reading
Request your trial