The King on the application of E. L. v The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Roger ter Haar |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 3185 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/773/2022 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
[2022] EWHC 3185 (Admin)
Roger ter Haar K.C. SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE
Case No: CO/773/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Liz Davies KC AND Tim Baldwin (instructed by Hodge Jones and Allen LLP) for the Claimant
Ian Peacock (instructed by Bi-Borough Legal Services) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 6 December 2022
Roger ter Haar K.C.:
At the hearing in this matter on 6 December 2022 I made an anonymity order preventing publication of the Claimant's name and identification of the premises to which reference is made below. That order continues.
Background Facts
The Claimant (“EL”) is 46 years old, having been born on 12 March 1976. He has a history and current presentation of mental health disorders and physical health disorders.
EL was a homeless person and through an application for homeless assistance was granted by the Defendant a secure tenancy in about January 2015 at premises in Grenfell Walk. There were reports of complaints and concerns as to his conduct at this tenancy. These included allegations of screaming and shouting, and of disturbing and intimidating neighbours.
Following the Grenfell fire on 14 June 2017, EL was evacuated from his accommodation and was accommodated by the Defendant in hotels and temporary accommodation pending an allocation under the Grenfell Rehousing Policy, which was adopted by the Defendant in April 2019. Most of these temporary placements were terminated as a result of allegations of anti-social behaviour on the part of EL.
On 8 April 2019 EL was offered and signed an introductory tenancy of a one bedroom flat. Because of the anonymity order to which I have referred above, I refer to this simply as “the property”. The property is in the basement of a block owned by the Defendant. The placement was made by the Defendant under its Grenfell Rehousing Policy to which I have already referred and to which I refer in more detail below. The tenancy formally started as a secure tenancy under the Housing Act 1985 on 15 April 2019.
As a result of allegations of anti-social behaviour, on 9 December 2019 the Defendant sought and obtained an injunction against EL. The injunction was for a period of 2 years, thus ending on 8 December 2021. On 8 December 2021 an application by the Defendant for an extension of the period of the injunction was refused, but by then the Defendant had commenced an application for committal for breaches of the injunction. On 17 August 2022, by consent, the hearing of the committal application was stayed pending the determination of this judicial review application.
It is EL's case that he has been the victim of retaliatory behaviour by his neighbours. This is best illustrated by the following account by Ms. Sonia Isaza, a Dedicated Service Worker employed by the Defendant 1:
“[EL]'s living situation is currently volatile. There is a risk that [EL] may be assaulted by his neighbours who are frustrated with their perception that the RBKC Council is taking no action to ameliorate his antisocial behaviour.
“On 13/08/2020 I completed a joint home visit with Psychologist, Dr Sarah Heke, from the Grenfell Health and Wellbeing Service. The purpose of the visit was to get an up to date mental health assessment and treatment plan.
“Following the assessment, as I was leaving several neighbours gathered outside [EL]'s flat in an attempt to speak to me about their frustration with the Council for allowing [EL] to live on their street.
“One of the neighbours was particularly vocal and loud in his expression of frustration. He blocked me from leaving and spoke
with a raised volume. He was carrying a walking stick which he shook angrily.“[EL] came out of his flat because of the shouting and interpreted his neighbours' actions as aggressive towards me.
“The neighbour began shouting at [EL] calling him “beggar” and a “useless excuse” and a “dirty” drug user.
“The argument became more heated as both parties raised their voices. The neighbour threatened to assault [EL] twice. I called the police because of the volatility of the situation and because [EL] was not heeding my advice to return to his flat.
“While I was calling the police, the neighbour raised his walking stick in a threatening manner, opened the gate to [EL]'s property and ran down the steps to his front door threatening to hit him. [EL] ran into his home and did not attempt to retaliate physically.
“I followed [EL] into the flat. The police arrived, and I invited them into the flat to make a police report.”
As well as having the benefit of legal assistance from, advice from, and representation by, solicitors at Hodge Jones & Allen, EL has been assisted by Ms Clara Citro of the Kensington and Chelsea Citizens Advice. Ms Citro was acting under the supervision of a solicitor and she commenced a process of securing alternative accommodation for the EL.
Following the incident on 13 August 2020 referred to at paragraph 7 above, Ms. Isaza took the view that EL needed “ to be moved as a matter of urgency” 2. She took steps to convene a complex case panel. She also involved Ms Citro 3. The referral for a complex case review 4 refers to EL having been asking to move for a year and Ms. Isaza's view that he needed to be moved as a matter of urgency.
The first complex case discussion took place on 25 August 2020 5. The Defendant's housing officers noted that there were allegations that the injunction had been breached. It was noted that assisted housing was not suitable and supported accommodation not viable. Mr. Lay (the Defendant's Head of Grenfell Housing Services) suggested a management transfer. It was decided that he would speak to Mr. Choda (a Team Leader in the Defendant's Grenfell Housing Team) to find out what documentation was required for a management transfer and would assess the position from a housing perspective once Dr Heke (a Consultant Clinical Psychologist in the Defendant's Grenfell Health and Well-being team) had written a report.
A second complex case discussion took place on 22 September 2020 6. It was agreed that Mr Lay would reassess from the housing perspective once Dr Heke's report had been received, that Ms Citro would send Dr Heke specific questions around housing and then send a revised report.
On 2 October 2020, Mr Choda had a phone conversation with Ms Citro 7. He is recorded as saying that there was no dispute that EL needed to move but there were contradictory messages from different directors about whether EL would be moved. It was agreed between them that Ms Citro would gather medical evidence and send that to Mr Choda asking for EL to be moved, and those representations would then be passed on within the Defendant's housing department.
A third complex case discussion took place on 20 October 2020 8. Dr Heke's report had been received by housing that day. Ms Citro informed the meeting that she had agreed with Mr Choda that she would be submitting representations for EL to be moved on medical grounds. An email from Ms Citro on 21 October 2022 9 confirmed that this was the plan.
On the 27 October 2020 Ms Citro wrote a letter making the request to move and representations in support 10. The following are significant passages in that lengthy letter:
“ The purpose of this letter
“I am writing to request that [EL] be rehoused either pursuant to the Grenfell Rehousing Policy (Revision April 2019) on the basis that the permanent accommodation as offered was never suitable for [EL] and as such that the Council continues to fall under a duty to provide him with suitable long-term housing; or in the alternative, on medical grounds pursuant to 4.6 of the Housing Allocations Scheme February 2017, on the basis that his current property is having a directly detrimental impact on his current health conditions and that a move to suitable accommodation is the only way to allow his health conditions to significantly improve over time.
….
“ Our representations
“As evidenced by the attached medical documents, following [EL]'s move into [the Property], there has been a significant deterioration in both his physical and mental health – this deterioration is attributable to the significant levels of stress and anxiety he experiences in the property, which feelings have escalated more recently to extreme feelings of being unsafe in the property, and ultimately led to a total inability for him to settle into this property as his new permanent home.
….
“The culmination of all this is that the property which [EL] had initially hoped would finally give him a settled base from which he would attempt to recover and rebuild his life, has turned into another volatile and unsettled situation for him – the cumulative impact of the property and its environment has resulted in a further and significant deterioration in his health conditions.
“It is due to this, that we request that [EL] be moved into suitable accommodation as soon as possible.
….
“ Impact of his current property on his health
“The current property has had, and continues to have, a directly detrimental impact on [EL]'s mental health conditions – as well as causing his existing health conditions to worsen, it has also caused him to suffer from physical health conditions as well as impacts on in his social, which have all in turn led to him experiencing new symptoms and challenges.
“We submit that the attached medical letters provide clear evidence that the current property that [EL] is living in is having a significantly detrimental impact on his mental health, such that his conditions and associated symptoms have, and continue to, deteriorate significantly. This is in part due to the treatment that he has received...
To continue reading
Request your trial