![]() It seems to me that the applicant did what they were told to do. This is similar to when as part of a gatekeeping strategy Councils told applicants they had to provide medical evidence when in fact it was the Council’s duty to take them in and assess them, collecting evidence with the applicant’s consent. I find this approach of Waltham Forest Council asking them to send an email just another trap, because it is so open ended and expects the applicant to know what is expected of them. What is that if not a request for a review? I hope this goes on appeal. The purpose of giving all the reasons why Luton was rejected was, surely, to ask the LA to think again. I must say, that seems like a harsh decision to me. There was no request to reconsider the decision there was only a list of reasons why she was refusing the Luton accommodation. Whether the email amounted to a request for a review depended on its substance. The High Court found for the local authority. The issue, therefore, was whether there had been a request for a review. The LA decided this was not a request for a review and she sought judicial review. Her email did not refer to any review but explained why the property was not suitable by reference to her need to stay in the local area (including, now, that her son had started school). She was told of her right to a review and, in a subsequent telephone call, was told the email address to use in order to request a review. ![]() The authority then decided that their duties had been discharged. Ms Bereket refused it again for the same reasons. The local authority explained why the property was suitable and gave a deadline for acceptance. She rejected the offer as it was too far from her friends and family. The authority accepted that it owed her a duty and offered her temporary accommodation in Luton. Ms Bereket applied to LBWF for homelessness assistance. There is always a danger in reading too much into a Westlaw note of judgment and, as we all know, context is everything, but even allowing for that, the decision in R (Bereket) v Waltham Forest LBC QBD, 4 November 2021 (Westlaw note only) looks like a very mean decision to me and one I firmly hope is appealed.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |