R v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte Walters
Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
Judgment Date | 06 September 1993 |
Date | 06 September 1993 |
Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, QC
Judicial review - homeless persons - local authority's duty to give reasons
An administrative body which was obliged to act fairly had to give reasons to those affected by its decisions.
Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the Queen's Bench Division, so held in giving his reasons for his decision on July 13 to allow an application for judicial review brought by Ms J Walters against the decision of the London Borough of Lambeth on October 21, 1992 to dismiss her appeal against the offer of a tenancy of 5 Maskall Close, St Martins Estate, London, SW2 and to evict her from temporary accommodation at 1A Wimbart Road, Tulse Hill, London, SW2.
Mr Richard Gordon for Ms Walters; Mr Michael Magloire for the local authority.
HIS LORDSHIP said that the applicant was an unmarried mother of a boy aged four who suffered from spina bifida. The child could only walk with difficulty, was regularly incontinent, had a very low immune system and frequently caught colds; a feature which necessitated 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 April 10, 1989. Pursuant to its duties, the local authority secured temporary accommodation culminating in her residence at 1A Wimbart Road.
On June 23, 1992 the local authority served a notice on the applicant under section 64 of the Housing Act 1985, stating that she was homeless, in priority need and unintentionally homeless. In purported discharge, therefore, the local authority offered the accommodation at 5 Maskall Close.
However, the applicant found the only heating was one gas heater in the living room and due to the general frailty of her son, she considered central heating, which she had at the temporary address, essential. She obtained a letter from her general practitioner in support of her contention.
The local authority replied that it had carried out a medical assessment on the applicant's son as in a notification in a letter dated July 24, 1992 and that if she felt the offer of the permanent accommodation was unsuitable she should appeal.
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 sons's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council, ex parte Grillo
... ... 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 ... ...
-
In The Petitions Of Andrew Somerville, William Cairns, Samuel Ralston, Ricardo Blanco And David Henderson V. The Scottish Ministers
...did a contention that the reason was obvious excuse a failure to state it in the order (R v London Borough of Lambeth, ex parte Walters [1993] 26 HLR 170, per Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC at page 175). There might be circumstances in which the reasons given would be inadequate or incomprehensib......
-
Andrew Somerville+samuel Ralston+ricardo Blanco+william Cairns+david Henderson V. The Scottish Ministers For Judicial Review
...of the reasons for their segregation. That did not relieve the governor of his duty: R v London Borough of Lambeth Ex parte Walters [1993] 26 HLR 170. There was no scope, in the circumstances, for the giving of evidence as to the reasons given being adequate: Clyde and Edwards at para 18.54......
-
The Queen v Hertsmere Borough Council ex parte Pettina Woolgar
...In failing to state any reasons, the local authority paid no heed to the decision on R. v. London Borough of Lambeth, ex parte Walters (1993) 26 HLR 170, and later decisions. Since the reasons for the local authority's decision became abundantly clear in the affidavit evidence and accompany......