The Queen (on the application of Dora Tendresse Ibrahim) v Westminster City Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Soole |
| Judgment Date | 01 October 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 2616 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/316/2021 |
[2021] EWHC 2616 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Soole
Case No: CO/316/2021
Edward Fitzpatrick (instructed by Osbornes Law LLP) for the Claimant
Ian Peacock (instructed by Tasnim Shawkat, Director of Law) for the Defendant
Hearing date: 5 May 2021
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
By successive decisions the Defendant local housing authority has held and maintained that the Claimant is intentionally homeless within the meaning of s.191 Housing Act 1996; and that in consequence it has no duty to secure that accommodation is made available for her pursuant to s.193 of the Act. There is no dispute that the Claimant otherwise meets the statutory requirements, i.e. is homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need for accommodation as a vulnerable person within the meaning of s.189(1)(c). Pending resolution of this claim the Claimant is in interim accommodation provided by the Defendant pursuant to s.188 or s.190 of the Act.
Pursuant to permission granted by Collins Rice J the Claimant seeks judicial review of the Defendant's decisions dated (i) 3.11.20, refusing to withdraw its s.202 review decision dated 28.8.20 and (ii) 17.11.20, refusing to treat the Claimant's further application for accommodation dated 30.10.20 as a new application.
Part VII of the Act sets out the statutory framework for homelessness applications. Where the housing authority has reason to believe that an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness it is required by s.184(1) to make enquiries to satisfy itself whether the applicant is eligible for assistance and if so whether any duty, and if so what duty, is owed to him or her. One such duty is the s.193 duty to secure accommodation for those in priority need. Under s.188 there is an interim duty to accommodate applicants who may be in priority need pending the s.184 decision. By s. 202 the applicant has the right to a review of an adverse s.184 decision; and s.204 gives the right to appeal an adverse review to the County Court on any point of law.
For the purpose of this claim the material provisions of the Act are:
s.191: ‘(1) A person becomes homeless intentionally if he deliberately does or fails to do anything in consequence of which he ceases to occupy accommodation which is available for his occupation and which it would have been reasonable for him to continue to occupy.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1) an act or omission in good faith on the part of a person shall not be treated as deliberate.’
s.177: ‘(1) It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable that this will lead to domestic violence or other violence against him…’.
s.202: ‘(2) There is no right to request a review of the decision reached on an earlier review’
s.204: ‘(2) An appeal must be brought within 21 days of his being notified of the decision or, as the case may be, of the date on which he should have been notified of a decision on review.
(2A) The court may give permission for an appeal to be brought after the end of the period allowed by ss.(2), but only if it is satisfied – (a) where permission is sought before the end of that period, that there is a good reason for the applicant to be unable to bring the appeal in time; (b) where permission is sought after that time, that there was a good reason for the applicant's failure to bring the appeal in time and for any delay in applying for permission.’
Narrative
The Claimant is aged 30 (date of birth 20.12.90) and a national of the Democratic Republic of Congo. She arrived in the UK in March 2014 and claimed asylum. On her unchallenged account and as recorded in the relevant interviews with the Home Office her husband had been a bodyguard for a General in the Congolese military and in August 2013 she had been raped by the General and threatened that she would be killed. Her husband and parents were later killed. Having gone into hiding she fled the country, believing her life to be under threat. Unsurprisingly these terrible events have had a serious and lasting effect on her mental health. The Claimant was granted asylum and given leave to remain in the UK.
Pending the grant of asylum, she was provided with NASS accommodation at two successive addresses in Middlesbrough. In June 2016 she suffered two incidents of harassment from a gang of local young men in the area which particularly scared her. On the second occasion they followed her to her home. The police sent patrols around every day. In March 2017 the Claimant was granted 5 years limited leave to remain refugee status. This brought to an end her NASS accommodation and she was directed to Middlesbrough Council housing department.
With effect from 5 June 2017 she had a tenancy from the North Star Housing Association of a one bedroom first floor flat above a shop (124A Parliament Road). One morning in June/July 2017 the male occupant of the adjoining flat (126) entered her flat through her bedroom window and went through to her bathroom where she was naked. She was terrified and shouted at him to leave which he eventually did. Her witness statement records ‘I felt shocked, shaken and terrified by what had happened. It brought back all the horrible memories and feelings from what had happened to me in the Congo’. She called the police who interviewed her that day. One of the officers told her that he thought the neighbour had intended to either kill or rape. The neighbour was arrested but subsequently released; and two days later she saw him outside the door of his flat.
In consequence the Claimant felt she had to leave this accommodation: ‘I felt I had no choice other than to leave to protect my life, but I had nowhere to go’. She left in mid-August 2017; and went to stay with the only people she knew, a friend and his wife in their one-bed flat in London, sleeping in the living room. Through a Medical Centre in Soho, she was in November 2017 first seen by a Consultant Psychiatrist working there, Dr Sara Ketteley. Dr Ketteley's first report of 5.12.17 (‘To whom it may concern’) recorded her trauma in the Congo; the incidents in Middlesbrough; symptoms of PTSD and a severe depression; and concluded that she would not be able to return to Middlesbrough: ‘In my view, I think that her mental health will deteriorate if she is returned to live in Middlesbrough, as from our interviews, it is clear that she no longer feels safe there, and that this has re-triggered her PTSD…Dora is more vulnerable than average whilst homeless and in my view, due the nature of the intrusions, and her own personal history of trauma, I think that she will not be able to return to Middlesbrough’.
In February 2018 her friend's wife was no longer happy for her to stay with them and asked her to leave. The Claimant went to a nearby homeless hostel, from where she made an application to the Defendant for homelessness assistance pursuant to Part VII of the Act. This was supported by the reports from Dr Ketteley dated 5.12.17 and a further report dated 6.2.18. The latter included: ‘She has an established diagnosis of PTSD and depression. Her PTSD has worsened in the last 6 months following the incidents of harassment and invasion of her property by a man whilst living in Middlesbrough. This reminded her so greatly of her original trauma in Congo that she was unable to stay in her new flat and fled to London to stay on the floor of the only other person that she knew in the UK.’
In the light of her application the Defendant provided the Claimant with interim accommodation pursuant to s.188 at an address in London SW1 where she has lived ever since.
Decision letter 5.8.18
By letter dated 5.8.18 the Defendant (by Paul Persaud, Housing caseworker) advised of its conclusion that she was homeless, eligible for assistance and had a priority need for housing; but had become intentionally homeless within the meaning of s.191.
Its opinion was that she had become intentionally homeless ‘as a direct consequence of your decision to leave your last reasonable, available and affordable accommodation at 124a Parliament Road…before ensuring that you had first secured alternative reasonable, available and affordable accommodation in order to ensure that you did not become homeless.’ It had considered her explanation for leaving that accommodation; and had liaised with Middlesbrough police who had confirmed the report of the incident. However ‘The police advised you had previously had good relations with this neighbour and he had previously been allowed to enter your home without permission. He had on the last occasion entered your home in order to return your kettle’. The police had not pressed charges; and had confirmed that they had not advised her to leave her home for her own safety and were not of the opinion that remaining at home posed a risk to her.
Pausing there, this account of the information from the police does not reflect the terms of a file note of the telephone conversation dated 27.6.18 between Mr Persaud and the police. This includes ‘The police arrested the neighbour at his own home and he advised he had good relations with the client and had regularly been allowed to enter her home without permission. He advised that on this occasion he'd gone to her home to return a kettle and inadvertently the client had been in the bath at the time. The client made a statement to the police but no charges were pressed against her neighbour. They...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lemari Minott v Cambridge City Council
...J); R (Abdulrahman) v Hillingdon LBC [2016] EWHC 2647, [2017] HLR 1 (Neil Cameron QC) and R (Ibrahim) v Westminster City Council [2021] EWHC 2616 (Admin) (Soole J). In all these cases it was held that a valid fresh application had been 88 The same result was reached in a number of other ca......