Section: Homelessness & Asylum Seekers

No Extension for Late Appeal

Birmingham CC found Ms Short intentionally homeless, and the decision was upheld at review. Ms Short had the legal right to appeal to the County Court, providing the appellant's notice was lodged within 21 days of being notified of the review decision. Ms Short failed to do this and asked the County Court to permit her appeal some three months past the deadline.

Ms Short argued that the delay was due to a combination of emotional strain due to her domestic situation and difficulty in getting quick access to a solicitor that specialises in housing law. The County Court refused Ms Short's application, as the Judge was not satisfied there was good reason for her failing to appeal in time.

Ms Short appealed to the High Court, contending that the Judge erred by failing to have regard to the merits of her appeal. The High Court quashed Ms Short's appeal and held that the Court must be satisfied that there was good reason for failing to bring the appeal in time, before it could go on to consider the merits of the appeal.

Short v Birmingham Council

Offer Letter Heading Was Misleading

In February 2000, Haringey Council offered accommodation to Mr Wakie. The offer letters were headed with the reference Your homelessness application.

Mr Wakie moved into the premises, but did not consider it suitable. He requested a review, but this did not result in any change to the original offer. Mr Wakie appealed to the County Court, arguing that the Council's decision on suitability was wrong (Housing Act 1996).

Mr Walkie's appeal was dismissed by the County Court in 2001, on the grounds that the offer decision was made under mainstream arrangements for housing allocations and not specifically under homelessness provisions.

Mr Wakie sought Judicial Review in 2003. Whilst this was not successful, during the proceedings the barrister for the Council stated that suitability of the offer had been determined under homelessness provisions. Consequently, Mr Wakie applied for permission to appeal against the original County Court decision.

The Court of Appeal refused permission, on the grounds that the offer had been made under mainstream arrangements for allocations, despite the heading on the offer letter being misleading. Further, the statement by the barrister at the Judicial Review was also misleading, but it did not alter the facts of the case.

Wakie v Haringey LBC

When is a Hostel a Hostel?

In November 2002, Mr Rogerson applied to Wigan Council as homeless and was given temporary hostel accommodation. The hostel was not purpose-built as such, but was a block of flats used as one. Each flat had bedrooms, a living room, bathroom, and kitchen. The block of flats was run as a hostel, with warden accommodation, warden access to rooms via a master key, and occupiers' agreements, which included the requirement to move from one flat to another, if so requested. Whilst occupiers had keys to their bedrooms, they shared the facilities of the flat with other residents.

Following an allegation that Mr Rogerson was in breach of his conditions of residence, he was evicted in February 2003, after 10 days' Notice and without a Court Order. He argued that he had been entitled to four weeks' Notice and a Court Order should have been obtained. Consequently, he sued the Council for illegal eviction. The Judge dismissed his claim and Mr Rogerson appealed.

The appeal Judge ruled that:

The block of flats met the definition of a hostel, as it provided residential accommodation, which had the facilities to prepare food other than in separate or self-contained accommodation.
The occupation agreement included provision for sharing facilities and, therefore, the accommodation could not be regarded as separate.
The hostel was excluded from protection because the Council had provided it and the eviction had not, therefore, been unlawful. However, had the hostel not been provided by the Council, the normal protection against eviction would have applied.

Rogerson v Wigan MBC

Accommodation Pending Review Refused

In 1989, Mrs Burns arrived from Nigeria on a visitor's visa. She applied for asylum in 1995, and a decision on her application was still pending.

In 1997, Mrs Burns met and married Mr Burns, who is an Irish national. She moved into his flat, but the marriage later failed and they separated. In March 2004, Mrs Burns was evicted for rent arrears. She applied to Southwark Council as homeless.

Sometime earlier, the Home Office had refused her application for a Residence Permit as the spouse of a European Economic Area citizen and she was appealing against that decision. The Council considered Mrs Burns' immigration status and decided that she was not eligible for housing assistance. In making this decision the Council had had regard to Mrs Burns' pending asylum application, as well as to the fact Mrs Burns was appealing the Home Office decision to refuse a Residence Permit.

Mrs Burns requested a review and accommodation pending that review. The Council refused this request for accommodation and Mrs Burns applied for a Judicial Review of that decision. She argued that the Council had been wrong to take account of the Home Office's decision of her immigration status and that it should have made its own assessment. The Judge dismissed her claim:

In exercising its discretion on whether to award accommodation pending a review of eligibility, it was reasonable for the Council to accept a Home Office decision at face value.
The Council had properly considered the legal criteria for exercising discretion, and its reasoning had been clearly set out in an appropriate letter explaining its decision.

Burns v Southwark LBC

Section: Homelessness & Asylum Seekers

No Extension for Late Appeal

Offer Letter Heading Was Misleading

When is a Hostel a Hostel?

Accommodation Pending Review Refused

Legal Update

Reporting on July-Sept. 2004

Quick Links

Welcome to the Legal Update

Archive Issues Reporting Periods