Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council have successfully fended off a claim that they were wrong to refuse accommodation to a man who had been evicted from his previous home for non-payment of rent.
The tenant argued that he was subject to a depressive condition and psychiatric problems, claiming that these symptoms were exacerbated by his eviction. He argued that he had been incapable of managing his own affairs and that, in those circumstances, he was to be viewed as vulnerable and in need of special consideration for housing.
He produced a doctor’s report backing his claims, but the council rejected his application for housing. They took the view that, despite the report, he was capable of managing his affairs and had, because of his non-payment of rent, made himself “intentionally homeless”.
The officer who wrote the council’s decision letter prepared a further statement for a county court challenge to the decision, amplifying the reasons for refusing the applicant’s claim.
The county court backed the council’s stance, but, on appeal, the applicant argued that the further statement should not have been adduced at the hearing.
Dismissing that challenge, the Court of Appeal held that the county court judge had been entitled to allow the further statement. They took the view that it had clarified the earlier decision letter rather than supplementing it.
Hijazi v Kensington and Chelsea Royal London Borough Council Court of Appeal (Judge and Dyson LJJ) 7 May 2003.
References: PLS News 8/5/03
