AA -v- London Borough of Hounslow (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: London Borough of Hounslow

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

18 October 2024

Before:

the Honourable Mr Justice Sheldon

Between:

AA

-v-

The London Borough of Hounslow

Order

On an application by the Claimant for interim relief

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant

ORDER by the Honourable Mr Justice Sheldon

  1. The application for urgent interim relief is refused.

  2. The Defendant shall file and serve its Acknowledgment of Service within 21 days of being served with the Claim Form.

  3. The Court shall consider the application for permission, and interim relief, on the papers following service of the Claimant’s Reply or notification from the Claimant that she will not be filing a Reply.

  4. The Claimant shall be identified in these proceedings as AA. Publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any material leading to her identification shall be prohibited.

  5. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. The Claimant is a refugee from Saudi Arabia. She came to the United Kingdom on 1 August 2024. On 30 August 2024, the Secretary of State granted her asylum. She has leave to remain in the United Kingdom, with a right to work, as well as to rent accommodation and to access public services and welfare benefits. On 11 September 2024, the Claimant was notified by the Secretary of State that she would be required to leave her asylum accommodation by 8 October 2024. The Form JR-MPA. Judicial Review. Miscellaneous Paper Application. Version September 2020 Claimant approached the Defendant, the London Borough of Hounslow, to make a homelessness application. The Defendant informed the Claimant that she was homeless, but was not in “priority
    need”. Accordingly, the Defendant was not obliged to provide her with temporary accommodation. The Defendant upheld this decision following a review.

  2. The Claimant contends that the Defendant has not rationally considered whether she is in “priority need”, and has failed to make due inquiries of her situation; further that the evidence that she has submitted has not been rationally considered, and that there is an ongoing failure to provide her with temporary accommodation.

  3. The Defendant has not provided their Acknowledgment of Service. Nevertheless, I have seen the decision letters made by the Defendant. It seems to me that the Claimant has not demonstrated a strong prima facie case that the Defendant has acted unlawfully; and in any event, the balance of convenience does not, at this stage, fall in favour of the grant of an interim injunction.

  4. First, the decision letters provided by the Defendant (in particular the response to the application for review) suggest that all of the evidence presented by the Claimant was considered, and that an evaluative judgment was made by the Defendant that the Claimant was not in “priority need”. It does not seem to me that there is a strong prima facie case that the evaluative judgment made by the Defendant was irrational.

  5. Second, the provision of temporary accommodation is costly to the Council, and supply is scarce. On the other hand, the Claimant’s evidence as to why she cannot obtain accommodation for herself whether in the area of the Defendant or elsewhere is rather slender. The Claimant is currently staying with a friend in the area of Cheshire West. That accommodation is clearly precarious, but the Claimant is entitled to receive universal credit which can presumably assist the Claimant with her accommodation costs. The Claimant is also looking for a part-time job. It is not obvious why the Claimant cannot access accommodation herself.

  6. Indeed, as the decision-maker pointed out on review, the Claimant has made various applications, managed to access medical care and access support with translation when needed. In her judgment, the Claimant was, in spite of the circumstances that led her to leave Saudi Arabia to live in foreign country, settled and able to access support in the United Kingdom. That judgment was clearly open to the Defendant on the evidence available, and is not undermined by the experiences that the Claimant suffered in Saudi Arabia or the incident of sexual assault that she has experienced here. I appreciate that the Claimant is concerned about becoming street homeless, but it does not appear from the evidence to be the only option available to her. Furthermore, the judgment of the Defendant that the Claimant is not “vulnerable” is not irrational.

  7. Once the Acknowledgment of Service has been provided, and the Claimant has submitted a Reply (if so advised), the Court will consider Form JR-MPA. Judicial Review. Miscellaneous Paper Application. Version September 2020 the application for permission and interim relief on the papers. I am not ordering expedition of those decisions, although it will be open to the Claimant (if so advised) to apply after submission of the pleadings for interim relief to be heard more quickly if there is good reason for this to be done.

  8. Given the circumstances surrounding the Claimant’s flight from Saudi Arabia, I consider that it is appropriate for her identity to be anonymised.

    Signed: Mr Justice Sheldon

    18 October 2024