Housing Solicitors

The High Court made an urgent interim order which required the Local Authority to provide emergency accommodation to a vulnerable refugee but it failed to act. The authority now faces being in contempt of court but does late compliance to an order mean it can escape the failure being regarded as a breach?

The Facts of the Case

The claimant is a vulnerable, disabled refugee, who was subjected to repeated attacks whilst in his native Afghanistan. As a result, he has complex mental health needs and also resided in a van.

The Local Authority rejected two homelessness applications submitted by the claimant and failed to offer interim accommodation whilst his application was processed. It also ignored a letter before action sent which was sent out.

Consequently, a claim for judicial review and an application for urgent consideration was made before the High Court.

The High Court ordered the authority to accommodate the claimant and said it must turn its mind to the matter promptly in order to protect the position of this extremely vulnerable refugee.

However, despite an Interim Order being made the defendant failed to provide suitable interim accommodation to the claimant in line with this. The delay was a breach of the defendant’s obligations to the order.

The defendant has now provided interim accommodation to the claimant, it is yet to be seen if it will continue to abide by the court’s directions.


Legal Position

There were three legal challenges made before the High Court:

1. The local authority’s failure to accept the claimant’s homeless application
2. The authority’s failure to provide interim accommodation to the claimant
3. The authority’s failure to comply with its Public Sector Equality Duty

The interim order was made by The Honourable Mrs Justice Foster DBE.


Ramifications

There is no doubt that there can be severe ramifications for non-compliance of orders made in the High Court, but it is to be whether the local authority will be able to explain its actions and escape serious censure.

Whilst the defendant did provide the claimant with interim accommodation eventually, they may be in contempt of court as it did not abide by the time requirements set out in the order.


Human Rights, and Wrongs

This case demonstrates that local authorities have a duty to abide by the uncompromising legal framework and must not ignore their duties. It is vital that applicants are made aware of their rights and the consequences of the local authorities’ actions or lack thereof. The case remains ongoing and the local authority is due to put their response before the High Court shortly.



Representation: Housing Caseworker, Amandeep Bains acted for the Claimant, instructing Annabel Heath of 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.


Amandeep Bains is a caseworker in the housing department at Duncan Lewis Solicitors and has experience handling a wide range of social housing matters. He is supervised by housing solicitor Daljit Singh Shina.

Contact Amandeep on 020 7275 2843 or at amandeepb@duncanlewis.com

Contact Daljit on 020 3114 1200 or at daljits@duncanlewis.com