[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Atach, R (On the Application Of) v Westminster City Council [2013] EWHC 3981 (Admin) (18 June 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2013/3981.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 3981 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		18 June 2013

1. MR JUSTICE EDWARDS-STUART: This is a renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review following refusal by the single judge on 15 May 2013. The claimant, his wife and his daughter have for the past two years or more lived in temporary accommodation provided by the local authority and latterly by the City of Westminster.
2. According to a letter from the council dated 14 March 2013, an offer of accommodation was made to the claimant of a property at 25 Carson Road, London, E16. The council says that that offer was made on 9 May 2012 and the council says that it was refused by the claimant, who requested a review of the decision under the available procedures. A review was carried out and the decision was upheld on 3 December 2012.
3. The only remedy open to the claimant in the face of that review was to appeal to the County Court on a point of law. The claimant did appeal to the County Court. It is not quite clear what happened; he says that his solicitor did not tell him about the hearing and did not conduct it properly. But all that is reasonably is the fact that the County Court dismissed the appeal.
4. The claimant then attempted to appeal to the Court of Appeal and it seems that that application for permission was dismissed by Patten LJ, who apparently said to the claimant that his only possibility might be to apply for judicial review of the council's decision.
5. The council's letter of 14 March says this:

"You have asked to make a further homelessness application on behalf of you and your family today on 14 March 2013. You were asked if there had been any change in your circumstances since Aisha Ahmed upheld the decision to end our housing duty to you. You initially advised us that there had not been any change in your circumstances, except for the fact that you will be evicted from flat 2, 21 Holland Road, London, next week, although evidence indicates that a claim for possession hearing is due to be heard on 21 April 2013. You also mentioned that you did not feel that your previous application was handled fairly and accused Westminster Housing Offices Services of malpractice. You went on to indicate because of this and your pending eviction that we were obliged to allow you to make a new homelessness application."

The letter goes on to say that they can see no evidence of malpractice.

6. The claimant now makes wide ranging allegations of bullying and abusive treatment over a substantial period from the council and other people acting in concert with it. He says for example:

"Since the claimant has always followed Aisha Islam's team orders it does not make sense for them to claim that the claimant had accepted all of the other out of order offers. But the last and most important offer made of 25 Carson Road was refused. What the defendant claims on this matter is inaccurate because the claimant saw this offer as a possible exit out of the horrible rollercoaster life that the claimant had gone through since January 2011. Nonetheless, if this is observed carefully, the offer of 25 Carson Road was a deliberate step by Aisha's team to make the claimant appear as the villain of the case by pushing the claimant into the wrong side of the community and creating a battle between him and the Westminster City Council since A Ahmed's offer was highly ambiguous and the false accusation of the claimant's... which seems that the ultimate purpose was to (inaudible) and disrupt the claimant and his family by all of the visible psychological and environmental harassment."

That said, when the claimant opened this application he told the court that he had been offered a home in east London and he had refused it because of his job and the location of his daughter's school. She was at Westminster College, he said.

7. The decision to be reviewed and the only decision to be reviewed by the court is whether the refusal by the Westminster Council to treat the claimant as homeless on 14 March 2013 was a decision that it could properly have made. The attack upon it is not entirely clear, but it appears to be that there was never a proper offer of accommodation or that the claimant did not have proper time to consider it.
8. As far as the last point is concerned, in effect the claimant was able to reconsider that offer at any time whilst the review process was being carried out between May and September 2012. It is not clear to the court why precisely the offer was refused but it seems that it must have been refused, because otherwise the claimant would not have appealed the review decision to the County Court. The decision of the single judge was that the council's decision to offer the previous accommodation of 25 Carson Road was upheld by the County Court. She said:

"A further homelessness application made by him on 14 March was refused by the defendant after interview because there had been no change in circumstances and it was decided there was no duty to assist the claimant pursuant to section 183."

She went on to say:

"The relief sought, as I understand it, is for that order to be stayed [that is the order for possession] and for an extension of time for the claimant and his family to reside at the temporary accommodation pending the outcome of his claim for judicial review. However, the grounds disclose no arguable basis for the claim for judicial review either for staying the possession order made by the County Court or challenging the decision of the defendant on 14 March to refuse his further homelessness application. The claimant relies on a series of detailed complaints about his history and the conduct of the (inaudible) housing but the grounds disclose no arguable basis on which the defendant's decision of 14 March could be said to be irrational or otherwise unlawful so as to require the intervention of this court."

9. It seems, sadly and unfortunately, that the claimant and his family have had a terrible time for the last two years, but the only ground upon which this court can act is if the decision by the council made on 14 March 2013 refusing a further application of homelessness, was one that no rational council could have made. On the face of the decision itself -- and this is not really contradicted by what Mr Aaba Atach said -- was that an offer of further accommodation was made in May 2012 and for whatever reason that offer of accommodation was not accepted. In those circumstances, the council's duty to accommodate the claimant and his family came to an end and I can see no way round that conclusion.
10. The only option that appears to be open to Mr Aaba Atach is to obtain medical evidence that his and his family's circumstances have changed and then to make a fresh application for accommodation. But the court does not have the power on this application to do what Mr Aaba Atach asks, which is to quash the decision to refuse to treat him as homeless, that was made on 14 March.
11. I am very sorry, but that is the position; the court can only do what is lawfully open to it and on this application I can see no way that the court can grant the relief to quash that decision.
12. Mr Atach, if you make a fresh application to the council supported by medical evidence and they refuse to accept it then you can come back to the court, but not until you have done that. I cannot do it for you.
13. I can make an order and I will issue an injunction directly to the council that they are not to destroy or dispose of your belongings for 28 days or until they have considered your application. I will make the order against Apex only. That, I am afraid, is the only order I can make.