April 18, 2024

FE -v- Westminster City Council (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Claim number: AC-2024-LON-000696

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

18 April 2024

Before:

Mr David Lock KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court

Between:

The King on the application of
FE

-v-

Westminster City Council

Order

Notification of the Judge’s decision on the application for permission to apply for judicial review (CPR 54.11, 54.12)

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Acknowledgement(s) of service filed by the Defendant.

ORDER by Mr David Lock KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court:

1.Pursuant to CPR r. 39.2(4), there shall not be disclosed in any report of the proceedings the names of the Claimant, or any details leading to her identification; and the Claimant, if referred to, shall only be referred to as FE.

2. Pursuant to s.11 Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the Claimant’s identity, or of any details leading to her identification in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

3. Pursuant to CPR r. 5.4C, a person who is not party to the proceedings may obtain a copy of a statement of case, judgment or order from the court records only if the statement of case, judgment or order has been anonymised such that: (a) the Claimant is referred to in those documents only as FE; and (b) any reference to the Claimant’s name is deleted from these documents.

4. Any person wishing to apply to vary or discharge this Order must make an Application to the Court, served on each parties.

5. The Claimant shall be referred to as “FE” in these proceedings.

6. The application for permission to apply for judicial review is granted.

7. The application is to be listed for a trial for 4 hours: the parties to provide a written time estimate within 7 days of service of this order if they disagree with this direction.

Observations

1. Although many issues are raised in the Statement of Facts and Grounds, in substance this is a dispute about whether the Defendant local authority has complied with its continuing obligation under s198A of the Housing Act 1996 (“HA”) to assess the Claimant’s case, as a person in priority housing need. No long term offer of housing has yet been made to the Claimant and the assessment is likely to be important in defining what is and is not a suitable offer of housing to meet the Claimant’s particular housing needs.

2. A lawful assessment must include the Defendant’s views on “the housing needs of the applicant including, in particular, what accommodation would be suitable for the applicant”. Further, until the local authority has discharged its duties to the homeless person, the local authority has a duty to keep the assessment under review: see s189A(9). That duty must include a duty to revise an assessment if further information is provided about the needs of the homeless person.

3. The Defendant accepts in its Summary Grounds of Resistance that (a) the Claimant is a person in priority housing need to whom the Defendant owes a duty under s193 HA, (b) that it has presently a duty to conduct an assessment of the Claimant’s needs under s189A and (c) it has not yet discharged that duty.

4. The Claimant submits that the original assessment produced by the Defendant in June 2023 was sufficiently deficient to be unlawful and thus the Defendant has been in continuing breach of duty. Whilst this is disputed by the Defendant, the Defendant accepts that it has a duty to revise its assessment in the light of the information provided in a report concerning the Claimant from Dr Aisha Ali dated 29 November 2023. The Defendant accepts that it is required to produce its amended assessment within a reasonable time but has not yet produced any amended assessment.

5. The Defendant has failed to produce the amended assessment despite being on notice of the alleged deficiencies of the original assessment for over 6 months and having had a copy of Dr Ali’s report for at least 4 months. In my judgment it is fully arguable that the Defendant has acted unlawfully by failing to produce an initial lawful assessment and in failing to produce a revised assessment before both issue of these proceedings or, at latest, the service of the Summary Grounds of Resistance. I thus grant permission.

6. The Claimant seeks expedition, but I am not satisfied that this case is appropriate for expedition. The Claimant is accommodated in Westminster at present and there are no complaints about her present accommodation, save that it is not a permanent letting. Her present housing situation is thus stable, and I therefore cannot see any proper grounds to expedite this claim.

7. If the Defendant serves an updated and lawful housing needs assessment, these proceedings are likely to become academic (save as to costs). In such a case the
Claimant and the Defendant should jointly make an application for permission for the Claimant to withdraw the proceedings.

8. This claim is presently about the alleged failure by the Defendant to serve a lawful housing needs assessment. If an amended housing needs assessment is served but the Claimant submits that the Defendant is continuing to act unlawfully in any way, the Claimant should seek permission to amend her grounds so as to set out precisely what new case the Claimant is advancing and the question as to whether the Claimant should have permission to advance that amended case will have to be considered afresh.

Case Management Directions

1. The Defendant and any other person served with the Claim Form who wishes to contest the claim or support it on additional grounds shall, within 35 days of the date of service of this Order, file and serve (a) Detailed Grounds for contesting the claim or supporting it on additional grounds, and (b) any written evidence that is to be relied on. For the avoidance of doubt, a party who has filed and served Summary Grounds pursuant to CPR 54.8 may comply with (a) above by filing and serving a document which states that those Summary Grounds shall stand as the Detailed Grounds required by CPR 54.14.

2. Any application by the Claimant to serve evidence in reply shall be filed and served within 21 days of the date on which the Defendant serves evidence pursuant to 1(b) above.

3. The parties shall agree the contents of the hearing bundle and must file it with the Court not less than 4 weeks before the date of the hearing of the judicial review. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared and lodged in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall, if requested by the Court lodge 2 hard-copy versions of the hearing bundle.

4. The Claimant must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 21 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.

5. The Defendant and any Interested Party must file and serve a Skeleton Argument not less than 14 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.

6. The parties shall agree the contents of a bundle containing the authorities to be referred to at the hearing. An electronic version of the bundle shall be prepared in accordance with the Guidance on the Administrative Court website. The parties shall if requested by the Court, prepare a hard-copy version of the authorities bundle. The electronic version of the bundle and if requested, the hard copy version of the bundle, shall be lodged with the Court not less than 3 days before the date of the hearing of the judicial review.