R v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte Walters

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date06 September 1993
Date06 September 1993
CourtQueen's Bench Division

Queen's Bench Division

Before Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, QC

Regina
and
Lambeth London Borough Council, Ex parte Walters

Judicial review - homeless persons - local authority's duty to give reasons

Obligation 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
18 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT