Slater v London Borough of Lewisham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Ward,Sir Martin Nourse,Sir Charles Mantell |
| Judgment Date | 12 April 2006 |
| Neutral Citation | [2006] EWCA Civ 394 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2005/1707 |
| Date | 12 April 2006 |
[2006] EWCA Civ 394
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICAT
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISI
ON APPEAL FROM CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY CO
HHJ MEDAWAR QC
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Ward
The Rt Hon. Sir Martin Nourse and
The Rt Hon. Sir Charles Mantell
Case No: B2/2005/1707
5cl52456
Donald Broatch (instructed by Kath Nicholson, London Borough of Lewisham) for the appellant
Jamie Burton (instructed by Morrison Spowart) for the respondent
Lord Justice Ward
The issues in this appeal
This is another case concerning appeals to the county court against a housing authority's review of its decision as to the suitability of accommodation offered to a homeless person under the Housing Act 1996, as amended. Here the London Borough of Lewisham ("the authority") confirmed its decision that it had discharged its duty to secure that accommodation was available for occupation by Ms Shahn Slater in the light of her refusal to accept the property offered to her which the authority considered to be suitable for her needs. This appeal is brought against a declaration made by HHJ Medawar Q.C. sitting at the Central London County Court on 21st July 2005 that:
"The renewed decision is varied by a declaration that it was not reasonable for Ms Slater to accept accommodation at 35 Gerard House SE14 5HT."
The result is that the authority will have to find another property to offer Ms Slater. The authority appeals with permission granted by Mummery L.J..
This appeal raises three issues.
(1) Before the authority can be said to have discharged its duty to make a final offer of accommodation, must it be satisfied pursuant to s. 193(7F) of the Act not only that the accommodation was suitable for the applicant but also that it was reasonable for the applicant to accept the offer?
(2) If it had to be satisfied of the unreasonableness of the refusal to accept the offer, did the reviewing officer so satisfy himself in this case?
(3) If not, was the judge entitled to make the declaration he did or should he have remitted the matter for further consideration by the authority?
S. 193 deals with the duty to persons with priority need who are not homeless intentionally and it provides, so far as is material:
"(2) Unless the authority refer the application to another local housing authority (see section 198) , they shall secure that accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant. …
(7) The local housing authority shall also cease to be subject to the duty under this section if the applicant, having been informed of the possible consequence of refusal and of his right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation, refuses an offer of accommodation under Part 6.
(7F) The local housing authority shall not –
(a) make a final offer of accommodation under Part 6 for the purposes of subsection (7) …
unless they are satisfied that the accommodation is suitable for the applicant and that it is reasonable for him to accept the offer.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7F) an applicant may reasonably be expected to accept an offer … even though he is under contractual or other obligations in respect of his existing accommodation, provided he is able to bring those obligations to an end before he is required to take up the offer."
The factual background
Because we must review the judge's declaration, it is necessary to set out the material facts fairly fully. The story begins in about June 2000 when Ms Slater, then only seventeen, met the twenty-one year old Damien Winney and soon established a relationship with him. After a matter of weeks he began to stay with her at her parents' home in Bellingham which is within the London Borough of Lewisham.
The relationship was tempestuous as Winney was a rather violent young man. Ms Slater's parents were thoroughly disapproving of his aggressive behaviour, his coming and going and his failure to maintain regular employment. After about six months they asked him to leave their house. That did not stop Ms Slater continuing to see him and the relationship continued. The parents were not best pleased when they discovered early in 2003 that Shahn was pregnant. They asked her to leave home and in April 2003, threatened with homelessness, she applied to the authority for accommodation as one unintentionally homeless. The application form set out the sixteen neighbourhoods which make up the Lewisham Borough and the applicant was advised that she might state whether there were any special reasons why she should not be rehoused in any of those neighbourhoods, for example, because she was "fleeing violence from an ex-partner". She believed that Winney had been living with his friends Kenny and Dean in the New Cross area and so she requested not to be accommodated in the Woodpecker or Kender districts both in the north of the borough in the area of New Cross because "father [of her expected child] was last known round that way". Her stated preference was to be rehoused in the Downham, Bellingham or Grove Park areas in the south of the borough where she could enjoy the support of her family and friends. The authority soon acknowledged that she was homeless, eligible for assistance and in priority need. They were thus under a duty to secure that accommodation was available for occupation by her.
In August 2003, by then heavily pregnant, she was offered a one-bedroomed flat on the third floor of a building without a lift in the Brockley area. She accepted it.
On 16th September 2003 her first daughter, Ellie, was born. She had remained in peripatetic contact with Winney but the difficulties between them continued. In October 2003, he broke into her flat and removed some of the contents. The police were called. For the sake of the baby she agreed to attempt a reconciliation towards the end of 2003. She was soon pregnant again. The reconciliation was short-lived and the parties appear finally to have separated some time in the summer of 2004. He visited on the occasion of Ellie's first birthday and said he was still living with friends in the New Cross Gate area. In October 2004 he visited and was so threatening that she locked herself in the bathroom. Her neighbours hearing the disturbance called the police. She saw him again in November loitering near her home and she hid away because she was by then very frightened of him. He had on a number of occasions grabbed her by the throat and on other occasions had slapped her about the head.
Concerned about being able to manage with a second child in cramped conditions, she pressed the housing department for a decision. She was delivered of her second child by Caesarean section on 9th November 2004. She went home for a few weeks to enjoy her mother's help and assistance.
At about that time the authority offered Ms Slater the accommodation at 35 Gerard House on the Kender estate. She rejected it on 19th November 2004, pointing out not only that the property was not close to her family and friends whose support she needed but also because:
"I've had problems with my babies' father … I do not know his address but he has been around the New Cross, Brockley, Peckham areas as this is where his friends are. As I do not wish to be involved with him I wouldn't feel safe in these areas."
She asked for the decision to be reviewed.
That review was carried out on 24th November 2004. The decision was to re-offer the property to her. The decision letter contained these assertions:
"We note that you were able to supply us with crime numbers pertaining to alleged incidents of abuse from your children's father, but due to the nature of the incidents were are unable to reverse our decision. Furthermore you were unable to substantiate your claim that neither [sic] your ex-partner or his friends resided in the New Cross area."
She was warned that she would not get any further help and that if she refused to accept what was on offer, she would have to find her own accommodation.
She still did not take up the offer but instead sought a review of the discharge component of the decision-letter and also appealed to the county court pursuant to s. 204 of the Act.
Her witness statement dated 16th December 2004 confirmed her belief that Winney lived in the New Cross area saying:
"Whilst I do not know Damien's exact address I know he lives near New Cross Gate station, as do many of his friends and it would simply be a matter of time before he finds me. The respondents also state in their review decision that I was unable to substantiate my claim that Damien or his friends live in the New Cross area. That is true, whilst I do not have exact addresses I just know from conversation with Damien and his friends the location of where they live. The fact is I know that is where they are currently living."
On 29th December 2004 Winney once again broke into her flat. Once again the police were called. This time Ms Slater took action to protect her position and she was granted an injunction restraining him from entering or attempting to enter her flat or to go within 25 metres of it. He was also forbidden to use or threaten violence against her or instruct or encourage any other person to do so. This injunction was to continue until 10th January 2006. The court also granted a power of arrest. Although Winney had told the police he was living with his parents whose home, like Ms Slater's parents', was in the Bellingham area, the injunction could not be served on him there because his parents denied that he was living with them and service had to be effected on him when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ahmed v Leicester City Council
...to her subjective approach, a matter to which proper weight should be given, if one has regard to the authority of this court, in Slater v Lewisham LBC [2006] EWCA Civ 394. 7 That seems to me to be a ground of appeal which has real prospects of success, and I therefore give leave to appeal ......
-
London Borough of Hackney v Haque
...[2001] 1 WLR 563, CAShala v Birmingham City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 624; [2008] LGR 23, CASlater v Lewisham London Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 394; [2006] HLR 37, CAAPPEAL from Judge Luba QC sitting in the County Court at Central LondonThe applicant, Mohammed Haque, appealed, pursuant t......
-
Mohamoud v Birmingham City Council
...the applicant understands the process. 50 Miss Orme relied in support of this argument on the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Slater v. Lewisham LBC [2006] EWCA Civ 394; [2006] HLR 37 and Solihull Metropolitan BC v. Khan [2014] EWCA Civ 41. However both those cases were about whether......
-
Poshteh v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council
...but on whether it was reasonable for the appellant to accept it. The decision-maker's task was described by Ward LJ in Slater v Lewisham London Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 394 (in terms which have not been criticised): "In judging whether it was unreasonable to refuse such an offer, th......