JM’s Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Treacy J |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] NIQB 105 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 08 November 2011 |
| Year | 2011 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2011] NIQB 105 Ref:
TRE8366
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
8/11/2011
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
JM’s Application [2011] NIQB 105
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
BY JM
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
BY WM (A MINOR)
BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND JM
________
TREACY J
Introduction
1. By this judicial review, the applicants challenge the manner in which
the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (“NIHE”) processed and
determined a housing application made by JM.
Background facts
2. JM, the first applicant, is sixty-eight years of age; he is registered
disabled; and he is the sole carer of WM, his eleven year old son, the
second applicant.
3. Until approximately 27 September 2007, both applicants had been
living in a NIHE property in an area of Belfast which I shall refer to as
X. The second applicant was attending a local primary school. The first
applicant alleged that they were regularly and persistently intimidated
by neighbours.
2
4. After an alleged direct threat was made to the first applicant, he
attended one of the district offices of the NIHE claiming he had been
forced to leave his former address as a result of intimidation. Pending
further enquiries, the applicants were placed in temporary
accommodation at a hostel.
5. In correspondence dated 23 October 2007, the first applicant was
informed that, although he was considered to be homeless and in
“priority need”, the duty to provide housing under the Housing
(Northern Ireland) Order 1988 did not apply because the NIHE was
satisfied the first applicant became “homeless intentionally”, ie he
voluntarily left his former address which was available for him to
continue to occupy. The first applicant unsuccessfully appealed this
decision. A further appeal (known as a “second stage homeless
appeal”) was also unsuccessful. It seems that both appeals did not
succeed due to a lack of evidence the first applicant would have been
at risk if he remained at his former address in X.
6. By correspondence dated 31 January 2008, the first applicant was given
7 days notice to vacate the temporary accommodation. Further, he was
advised that, pursuant to the NIHE Housing Selection Scheme, he was
awarded 30 points and would be placed on a waiting list for
accommodation in his preferred area.
7. In correspondence dated 4 February 2008, the first applicant’s solicitors
requested information as to how the NIHE reached its decision that the
first applicant was “intentionally homeless”; how it decided to allocate
30 points to him under the Housing Selection Scheme; and for an
explanation as to the basis of the decision to issue the 7 day notice to
the applicant within which he was required to vacate the temporary
accommodation.
8. Subsequently, by way of correspondence dated 11 February 2008, the
NIHE informed the first applicant that the 7 day notice had been
amended to 28 days notice. However, as the NIHE had failed to
provide a response to the other issues raised by the first applicant’s
solicitors, an application for judicial review was lodged. The NIHE
permitted the applicants to remain in the temporary accommodation
pending the outcome of the judicial review. In addition, the NIHE
conducted its own review of its original decision that the first applicant
was “intentionally homeless”. By this stage, the issue of the regard
which the NIHE had given to the second applicant and whether he too
could be “intentionally homeless” had been raised.
9. By correspondence dated 8 April 2008, the first applicant was notified
of the outcome of the NIHE’s further review of its original decision.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
EM and CM (a minor) by EM, her Mother and Next Friend, EM for Judicial Review v The Northern Ireland Housing Executive
...prospective or current tenants in the context of housing selection schemes which have recognised the engagement of Article 8: Re JM [2011] NIQB 105 at [84] – [94]; Re Turley [2013] NIQB 89 at [37] – [40]; R (HA) v Ealing LBC [2015] EWHC 2375 at [29]; R (C) v Islington LBC [2017] EWHC 1288 a......