R v London Borough of Southwark ex parte Davies
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR. JUSTICE LAWS |
| Judgment Date | 10 December 1993 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1993] EWHC J1210-3 |
| Docket Number | CO/655/93 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 10 December 1993 |
[1993] EWHC J1210-3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
CROWN OFFICE LIST
Before: Mr. Justice Laws
CO/655/93
MR. R. GORDON (instructed by Messrs. Anthony Gold Lerman & Muirhead, London SE1) appeared on behalf of the Applicant
MR. TIMOTHY STRAKER (instructed by the London Borough of Southwark) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Friday, 10th December 1993
MR. JUSTICE LAWS: This is an application for judicial review. It is a homelessness case. The applicant is Miss Davies, the respondent the London Borough of Southwark.
The applicant had been granted an assured shorthold tenancy at premises at 1 St. Elmos Road, Stave Hill Park, in London. The agreement was made on 2nd August 1989. The landlord was not the authority but a private landlord. The agreement was extended or renewed on 2nd January 1991 for two years, thus expiring on 2nd January 1993.
I must come back to the events which happened meantime but can go, for present purposes, straight forward to the applicant's application to the local authority to be housed under the provisions of Part III of the Housing Act 1985. The application she made was made jointly with her boyfriend, Mr. Jeffrey. It was made on 31st December 1992. She was (or was about to be) evicted from St. Elmos Road. There were interviews. Eventually there was a decision on 22nd January 1993, which I will read in part:
"This authority is satisfied that you are homeless and in priority need. However we do consider that you are intentionally homeless. This decision has been made for the following reasons:
1. You deliberately failed to pay the full amount of rent for 1 St. Elmos Road, thus accruing £2,370 rent arrears."
(I interpolate that I am not sure that the figure is right. A slightly different figure is given in the evidence, but the difference is as to a few pounds only.)
"2. The consequence of this failure was the loss of your home, 1 St. Elmos Road.
3. You were subsequently evicted from this property on 2nd January 1993.
4. This accommodation was available for your occupation; and
5. This accommodation was entirely suitable for your needs and you would have been able to continue to occupy it had you supplemented the £170 payment that housing benefit were making on your behalf with the £30 requested from you. It is our opinion that it would have been possible to make these payments from Mr. Jeffrey's income of £155 per week."
The letter concludes with an offer of temporary bed and breakfast accommodation.
I should return to the history. Back in 1989 the applicant was receiving housing benefit which covered the whole of her rent. Either for all or part of the period of her tenancy the rent was as high as £200 a week, but in late 1990, owing to a change in the policy or the rules, her housing benefit was reduced. She went to the Housing Benefit Review Board on appeal, and she was, I think, allowed her full housing benefit so as to cover the entirety of the rent until a date in about March 1991. But in August 1991 the Housing Benefit Review Board decided that the deduction of £30 a week from her housing benefit was justified. That was made effective from 8th July 1991; so from that date there was a shortfall in the housing benefit she was paid of £30 a week, and it is from the same date that the arrears of rent began to accrue, amounting (as the respondents were, in due course, to say) ultimately to over £2,300.
There were judicial review proceedings of the Review Board's deduction of £30 but they were compromised, I understand, on terms that the Review Board would look at it again. However, a decision was made by the Review Board after the decision now under challenge, which upheld the earlier deduction of £30; so that the position has remained that the £30 has fallen to be taken off the weekly housing benefit in effect from July 1991.
The arrears having arisen and accrued, the landlord served a notice to quit in, I think, December 1992; and in due course the application to Southwark Council under Part III of the Housing Act was made, as I have described.
Part of the history of this case concerns the relationship between Miss Davies, the applicant, and the man whom I have described as her boyfriend, Mr. Jeffrey. In a letter written after the decision to the local Member of Parliament, Southwark Council said this:
"We feel that the correct decision has been made, as whilst Mr. Jeffrey and Ms Davies were living together at 1 St. Elmos Road Ms Davies was claiming both housing benefit and income support. As you are aware, housing benefits are means tested and Ms Davies' assessment for this benefit excluded the income of Mr. Jeffrey confirmed to be £155 per week from his employment. Apart from the fact that they are almost definitely guilty of claiming state benefits fraudulently, there is no reason why they could not have afforded to pay the £30 difference between the housing benefit payments and the rent."
The same account is, in effect, given by a letter of 24th February 1993 to Councillor Denton from Southwark Council and, indeed, is reflected in the evidence sworn by Miss Sharon Williams on behalf of the local authority.
The local authority, therefore, say (and, through Mr. Straker, have submitted to me) that there was every reason to suppose that this applicant could have paid her full rent all the way through, with no doubt the assistance of her boyfriend, but chose not to do so. Had she done so, she would not have been evicted. Accordingly, her homelessness was intentional. In addition, it is said that I should have...
To continue reading
Request your trial