Daie v London Borough of Camden Homeless Persons' Unit

Where a permission application reveals that a local authority may not have determined a separate homelessness application, the court should avoid deciding the merits before the authority has notice and an opportunity to respond. The appropriate course may be to adjourn the application and make a short-term order preserving accommodation until the resumed hearing. Such an interim order does not express a view on the merits.

Mr Daie, acting in person, sought permission to appeal from a judgment of Hodge J dated 7 March 2005 in the Administrative Court. The London Borough of Camden was not represented at the hearing. The papers included a 10 September 2004 application under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 alleging homelessness, and a 6 October 2004 letter concerning temporary accommodation pending works at Adamson Road. The central issue was whether that letter determined the homelessness application.

Disposition. Lord Justice Keene adjourned the application for permission to appeal for seven days, to 31 March 2005, on notice to the London Borough of Camden. Mr Daie was directed to serve the authority with notice of the hearing and his appellant’s notice. Camden was ordered to continue providing housing accommodation until the resumed hearing.

1. The papers appeared to disclose an application dated 10 September 2004 under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 on the ground that the applicant was homeless. Nothing in the papers appeared to deal with that application.
2. The letter dated 6 October 2004 appeared instead to concern the provision of temporary accommodation pending works at Adamson Road. On its face, it did not appear to be a decision on the separate homelessness application.
3. The court was therefore not in a position to assess the merits of the challenged letter. The matter was adjourned so that the local authority could be represented and assist the judge in reaching a sensible decision.
4. The continuing-accommodation order was made to preserve Mr Daie’s position until that hearing. A transcript of Hodge J’s judgment was directed to be obtained urgently.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 24 March 2005, Lord Justice Keene adjourned the permission application to 31 March 2005 and made an interim order requiring continued housing accommodation.
2. High Court, Administrative Court: Hodge J gave judgment on 7 March 2005, from which the application for permission to appeal arose. No citation or result for that judgment is stated.