Local housing authority – Statutory duty – Respondent council finding appellant intentionally homeless – Housing officer advising appellant of right to appeal within prescribed time limit – County court refusing permission to bring appeal out of time – Whether appellant having good reason for failing to appeal within statutory time limit – Appeal allowed
The appellant, who was profoundly deaf, became homeless when she was unable to pay her mortgage. She applied to the respondent council, as local housing authority, to be rehoused. The respondents concluded that she was intentionally homeless and therefore they were under no statutory duty to provide her with suitable accommodation.
Following a review, the respondents informed the appellant by a letter dated 7 February 2008, that they were upholding their original decision but that she had a right of appeal to the county court, under section 204(5) of the Housing Act 1996, within 21 days from the date of the letter. She was also advised to see a solicitor regarding any appeal.
The appellant consulted a legal advice centre but had problems finding a solicitor who was willing to assist her. She finally instructed her present solicitor, who submitted an appeal on her behalf on 2 April 2008.
Since section 204(2) required the appellant to bring her appeal within 21 days, she applied, under section 204(2A), for permission to bring her appeal out of time because she had “good reason” for failing to act within the time limit. The county court judge, observing that whether a reason amounted to a good reason was a question of fact and value judgment, refused her application. He reached that conclusion even though he had found that: (i) the appellant’s attempts to obtain assistance would have been impressive for someone without a disability; (ii) she had not realised that she had a right to apply for an extension of time; and (iii) she had not been willing to accept unfavourable advice but had pressed on, as she was entitled to do.
The appellant appealed, contending that the judge had taken a more restrictive attitude to the exercise of his powers to extend time than was justified and had erred in concluding that this was a case where the appellant had received legal advice but had rejected it.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
In the light of the facts found by the judge, it was appropriate to grant the appellant permission, pursuant to section 204(2A), to bring her appeal outside the time limit.
The question as to whether a reason, or a combination of reasons, should be categorised as being “good” could be considered at large and without any preconceptions as to what might or might not qualify as a contributor to the ultimate decision of whether a reason was good. Unless there was a rule of law to the contrary, the appellant did not lose merely because she had been misadvised by her legal advisers.
The use of synonyms was undesirable. The phrase “good reason” meant some fact that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the appellant’s state of health and the information she had received or might have obtained, would probably have caused a reasonable person of her age and experience to act as the appellant had. It did not follow that because the appellant might have had a good reason to accept the unfavourable advice she had received that she could not have a good reason for refusing to accept it. The appeal was not hopeless and it was not without significance that an officer of the respondents had encouraged her to appeal.
Stephen Reeder (instructed by Pierce Glynn) appeared for the appellant; Josephine Henderson (instructed by the legal department of Southwark London Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
