Oyekan, R (on the application of) v London Borough Of Merton & Anor

Receipt of income support does not prevent a local authority from independently investigating an applicant’s finances where available information suggests that the authority lacks the full picture. Where relevant financial information is withheld, a reasonable provisional accommodation charge may be imposed. A claim concerning allegedly lost possessions is unsuitable for judicial review where serious factual disputes require resolution. The safeguarding duty under section 211 of the Housing Act 1996 does not require a local authority to provide free accommodation or storage for sophisticated, valuable equipment. Although section 188 requires a homelessness authority to consider eligibility irrespective of any possible referral, judicial review may properly be dismissed where the authority offers to reconsider and the substantive dispute has thereby disappeared.

Mr Oyekan sought permission to appeal from an order of Mr Justice Dyson dated 3 August 2000 concerning judicial review proceedings against Merton and Westminster. Merton had placed him in bed and breakfast accommodation as a person in priority need, increased his charge after he declined to disclose financial information, and cancelled the accommodation when arrears accrued. Westminster refused to consider a later homelessness application, referring him back to Merton. Westminster accepted that this was legally wrong and offered to reconsider. Mr Justice Dyson dismissed the proceedings, upheld Merton’s charging decision, and did not determine the alleged failure to safeguard Mr Oyekan’s possessions. The central issues before the Court of Appeal were the authorities’ statutory duties and whether the property dispute was suitable for judicial review.

Disposition

Lord Justice Buxton heard the substance of the application after Mr Oyekan arrived late, but refused to set aside the order made earlier that day dismissing the application for non-attendance.

1. Westminster’s duty. Westminster had been wrong to refuse to consider the homelessness application. Section 188 of the Housing Act 1996 imposed a duty to consider eligibility for temporary accommodation irrespective of any possible referral to another authority. Nevertheless, Mr Justice Dyson was entitled to decline to pursue judicial review because Westminster had offered to deal with the matter on the correct legal basis. Once the substantive issue had disappeared, the associated damages claim was not appropriately pursued within judicial review proceedings.
2. Merton’s charge. The receipt of income support did not preclude Merton from making independent inquiries into Mr Oyekan’s finances. The tender of a cheque from a business account reasonably suggested that the authority might not have the full financial picture. After Mr Oyekan refused the requested disclosure, the provisional charge of £50 per week was arbitrary in amount but reasonable in the circumstances. The judge was therefore right to conclude that Merton had not erred in law in adopting it under section 206(2) of the Housing Act 1996.
3. Possessions. Section 211 of the Housing Act 1996 required reasonable steps where personal property was endangered because an applicant could not protect or deal with it and no suitable arrangements existed. The evidence indicated that storage had been available, subject to payment. The court considered that the reference to personal possessions was directed towards ordinary household equipment, and did not require a local authority to provide accommodation or free storage for sophisticated and valuable computer equipment. In any event, the serious factual dispute about what happened to the possessions made the issue unsuitable for judicial review. The court did not determine whether Mr Oyekan had another claim elsewhere.

Permission to proceed was refused. The application was dismissed and the respondents were awarded the costs of the day.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Dismissed the application for permission to appeal and refused to set aside the order made for non-attendance.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Mr Justice Dyson dismissed the judicial review proceedings. Westminster’s offer to reconsider made further judicial review inappropriate; Merton’s accommodation charge was not unlawful. The alleged failure to safeguard possessions was not determined.