Source: https://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/news/issue-65-2nd-july-2007
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 03:23:03+00:00

Document:
On the same day, the Office of Fair Trading announced that Anchor Trust, the largest not-for-profit provider of housing, support and care for the elderly in England, had agreed to change terms and conditions in its long lease agreements that the OFT considered were unfair terms. For the details click here.
R(Abdi) v Lambeth LBC  All ER (D) 325 (Jun), 25 June. The claimant sought a review of an adverse homelessness decision and asked to be accommodated by the council pending the outcome of that review. The decision to refuse that request was taken by the same officer who had made the original adverse decision. The claimant began judicial review proceedings asserting that fairness required that a different officer (the more senior, reviewing officer) should take the decision on accommodation pending review. The High Court dismissed the claim. Neither the statutory scheme nor any general principle of fairness required that the two decisions should be taken by different officers. For the transcript click here.
R(A) v Liverpool CC  EWHC 1477 (Admin), 26 June. The claimant sought assistance from the council on the basis that he was a 14 year old unaccompanied asylum seeker. The claimant obtained a report from a consultant paediatrician concluding that, more likely than not, he was 14. The council obtained two reports from a dental specialist who advised that the claimant was at least 18. Those reports were not immediately provided to the claimant. The council decided that he was over 18 and the responsibility of NASS. In judicial review proceedings, the decision was quashed. In reaching its decision without disclosing the first dental report the council had acted unfairly.
R(Gilboy) v Liverpool CC  26 June CO/10584/2006. The claimant had been a secure tenant but the council had obtained an order demoting his tenancy. It then decided to seek his eviction. He unsuccessfully sought a review of that decision in which he disputed the facts relied on by the council. The review was conducted by the council itself. The claimant sought judicial review on the basis that the decision-making structure was non-compliant with Art 6 ECHR. It did not allow for an independent adjudication of the facts as required by Tsfayo v UK. A High Court judge granted permission to apply for judicial review. The full case will be heard on 27 September 2007. For more details click here.
Countour Homes Ltd v Rowen  All ER (D) 310 (Jun), 26 June. A periodic assured tenancy agreement, granted by a registered social landlord, allowed for the rent to be increased by service of a landlord's notice on the tenant. The tenant's handbook said that if the tenant disagreed with the increase, the rent could be referred to a rent assessment committee. The landlord gave notice and the tenant referred it to a rent assessment committee. A judge decided that the committee had jurisdiction to set the new rent or that the landlord was estopped from denying it had. The Court of Appeal allowed the landlord's appeal. The existence of a provision for rent increases in the agreement ousted the jurisdiction of the committee. Jurisdiction to exercise a statutory function could not be sustained by an estoppel.
Ahmed v Leicester CC  All ER (D) 327 (Jun), 27 June. A single mother of Somali origin was made a final offer of a four bedroomed house in performance of the main homelessness duty. On her first visit she signified an interest in taking the tenancy. On her second visit she found that the windows had been broken and rubbish thrown in the garden. She was told by another Somali woman that there were problems with anti-social behaviour and racial harassment. She was chased away from the house by three teenagers who shouted that if she moved in they would "burn her out". She refused the offer. The council decided that the offer had discharged its duty. That decision was upheld by the reviewing officer and the county court judge. The Court of Appeal dismissed a further appeal. The reviewing officer had accepted what the applicant had said but had applied (correctly) an objective test in determining both whether the property was "suitable" and whether it would have been reasonable for the applicant to have accepted it.
Murphy v Gooch  EWCA Civ 603, 27 June. This case considers the complex question of the respective interests of former partners (of an unmarried relationship) in a property bought as their home. The matter was reviewed generally in Stack v Dowden  UKHL 17. But in this case there was the additional complication that the home had been bought on a 99 year lease under a shared ownership scheme with a housing association. The couple had bought 25% on an endowment mortgage , the association had bought the other 75%. The relationship broke down only two years after purchase. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal in a dispute over proportionate shares in the value on resale but observed that because both parties had been publicly-funded, if the statutory charge applied, it was doubtful whether "anyone outside the legal profession will benefit". For the transcript click here.
Shala v Birmingham CC  EWCA Civ 624, 27 June. The claimant was a Kosovan refugee. She and her husband had lost contact with three of their daughters in the upheaval in that country but had reached the UK with their adult children. The issue for the council was whether she had a "priority need". On the question of "vulnerability" the medical evidence was of depression. A consultant psychiatrist had diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. Her GP reported that she was on high dose anti-depressants, was mentally unstable, had nightmares, flashbacks and was self-neglecting. The council commissioned medical advice from the organisation "Now Medical" which was provided by Dr John Keen who did not examine the claimant or speak with her doctor or specialists. It decided that she was not vulnerable and that decision was upheld by a reviewing officer and on appeal to the county court. The Court of Appeal allowed a further appeal. The reviewing officer had wrongly failed to take account of one medical report and been wrong to consider that another "added nothing". The Court went on to give extended guidance on the commissioning and use of medical advice by local housing authorities. For the transcript click here.
Gilby v Westminster CC  EWCA Civ 604, 27 June. The claimants gave up their long term privately rented home and went to live in their sister's council flat. When the council repossessed that flat they applied as homeless. The council decided that they had become homeless intentionally because they had been only unlawful subtenants of their sister. On review, the decision was upheld but on the basis that they had been bare licensees staying only temporarily with their sister. On appeal, the claimants argued that this shift in reasoning had required the reviewing officer to comply with reg 8(2) of the review regulations and allow them to be heard. The Court of Appeal held that there was no inconsistency in the reasoning. On either view, the council was deciding that they had not had settled accommodation since giving up their last secure home. For the transcript click here.
Hillingdon LBC v Vijayatunga  All ER B(D) 357(June), 28 June. Following complaints of nuisance from neighbours, the council obtained an injunction to prevent the defendant, one of its tenants, from going onto the communal roof of a block of flats to leave food out for birds and cats. Neighbours complained of breach of the injunction and the council applied to commit. The judge found the tenant guilty of contempt and imposed a fine. The tenant appealed on the basis of technical defects in the committal proceedings e.g. that the evidence which should have been contained in affidavits was given in witness statements. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The procedural defects had been minor and had caused no injustice.
R(M) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions  EWCA Civ 614, 28 June 2007. The claimant had been in receipt of income support including a disability premium. That premium was stopped when he became homeless and slept rough. Benefit regulations prevented payment of the premium to claimants "without accommodation". The claimant sought judicial review on the grounds that he had been wrongly deprived of a possession (the premium) contrary to Art 1 Protocol 1 ECHR on grounds that amounted to discrimination (contrary to article 14) between those with and without accommodation. The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of his claim. Discrimination on the grounds of lack of accommodation was not discrimination by reason of any personal characteristic and was therefore not covered by Article 14. For the transcript click here.

References: Art 6
 EWCA 
 UKHL 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 Art 1