Shala and Another v Birmingham City Council: CA 27 Jun 2007

The claimants succeeded in their applications for asylum, and then applied for housing assistance. They now appealed refusal of such assistance. The issue was how the authority had treated their medical evidence in the review process. Mrs Shala was receiving treatment for depression.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Housing authorities should be careful not to hide behind the details of medical reports in order to refuse merited applications for emergency housing assistance: ‘care has to be taken by local authorities not to appear to be using professional medical advisers simply to provide or shore up reasons for a refusal. ‘ In this case the authority had refused to take into account further medical evidence which indicated a condition more serious than that considered by the adviser. Where a medical adviser wishes to discount evidence by doctors who have seen the patient, the authority should either allow that he has not himself seen the applicant, or arrange for him to see them, or to talk directly with the doctor who has seen the patient.

Judges:

Mummery LJ, Sedley LJ, Lightman J

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 624, Times 06-Jul-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 189

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedGriffin v Westminster City Council CA 28-Jan-2004
The claimant sought emergency rehousing saying that he was a vulnerable person within section 189. The court at first instance had overturned the rejection of his claim by the authority.
Held: The test set out in the statute was to be followed . .
CitedKhelassi v London Borough of Brent CA 7-Dec-2006
The court considered the use of medical expert evidence in applications for emergency housing. . .
CitedHall v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 17-Dec-2004
The applicants appealed refusal of their applications for housing having priority housing need being vulnerable because of their mental illness. They said that the original decisions had been reviewed, and that on review deficiencies had been . .

Cited by:

CitedLondon Borough of Wandsworth v Allison CA 15-Apr-2008
The claimant had applied for emergency housing, saying that he had suffered a deep vein thrombosis, and was vulnerable under the 1996 Act. The authority said that its finding that the VT would not put him at additional risk if homeless, was one of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.253709