The applicant had applied for rehousing as a homeless person. She was offered interim accommodation but refused it. Her case was reviewed, and her reasons rejected. She claimed the procedure was unfair, in that the authority was looking at decisions on disputed facts, and reviewing its own decisions on those facts. It was not acting independently.
Held: The review was a determination of the applicants civil rights, and not merely the exercise of a discretion. Though there may have been no actual bias in the decision, it was done in private, and there was an appearance of risk of bias. The s204 right of appeal to the county court was part of the same procedure, and was independent. That court had full power to look at those matters at issue, and was a sufficient remedy to any defects in the earlier procedure.
Judges:
The Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales, Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Dyson
Citations:
Times 04-Apr-2002, Gazette 18-Apr-2002, [2002] HLR 70, [2002] EWCA Civ 239
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights Art 6.1, Housing Act 1996 204(1), Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999, Local Authority (Contracting Out of Allocation Housing Homelessness Functions) Order 1996 3
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison, Ex parte Hague, Weldon v Home Office HL 24-Jul-1991
The prisoner challenged the decision to place him in segregation under Prison Rule 43. Under rule 43(1) the initial power to segregate was given to ‘the governor’. The case arose from the fact that the governor of one prison had purported to . .
Distinguished – London Borough of Newham v Adan CA 14-Dec-2001
The applicant was a Dutch national. She appealed for housing as a homeless person. The local authority, after review found her not to have a settled intention to stay in England. She appealed, to the County Court, and succeeded, and the Authority . .
Cited by:
Cited – The Secretary of State for Health, Dorset County Council v The Personal Representative of Christopher Beeson CA 18-Dec-2002
The deceased had been adjudged by his local authority to have deprived himself of his house under the Regulations. Complaint was made that the procedure did not allow an appeal and therefore deprived him of his rights under article 6.
Held: . .
Appeal from – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – London Borough of Harrow v Qazi HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had held a joint tenancy of the respondent. His partner gave notice and left, and the property was taken into possession. The claimant claimed restoration of his tenancy saying the order did not respect his right to a private life and . .
Cited – Lambeth London Borough Council v Ireneschild CA 16-Mar-2007
The tenant held a secure tenancy of a first floor flat of the Council. She was severely disabled and argued that the danger of injury meant that she should be allowed to occupy the empty ground floor flat. She complained at the way the authority had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing, Human Rights
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167733