Atach, R (On the Application Of) v Westminster City Council

On a renewed application for permission to seek judicial review, the court may intervene only where the local authority’s homelessness decision was one which no rational authority could have made or was otherwise unlawful. A previous refusal of suitable accommodation, followed by a review and dismissal of an appeal on a point of law, could support a conclusion that the authority’s duty to accommodate had ended. General complaints about past treatment did not provide a basis for quashing the later refusal where there had been no material change in circumstances. A fresh homelessness application supported by medical evidence remained open to the claimant.

The claimant, his wife and daughter had lived in temporary accommodation provided by the local authority. The council had offered accommodation in May 2012, which the claimant refused. The refusal was upheld on review and the claimant’s appeal to the County Court was dismissed. A subsequent application for homelessness assistance made on 14 March 2013 was refused because there had been no change in circumstances.

The claimant sought judicial review, alleging that the earlier offer was improper or insufficiently clear and raising wider allegations concerning the council’s conduct. The issue was whether the council could lawfully refuse to treat him as homeless on the later application.

1. Renewed application. The claimant had no arguable basis for judicial review of the council’s refusal of the further homelessness application. The court’s supervisory jurisdiction was engaged only if the decision was unlawful, irrational, or one which no rational council could have made.
2. Effect of the earlier accommodation offer. The claimant had been able to reconsider the offer during the review process. The offer had been refused, and the review decision had been upheld on appeal to the County Court. In those circumstances, the council was entitled to conclude that its duty to accommodate the claimant and his family had ended.
3. Wider complaints. Allegations of bullying, malpractice and abusive treatment did not establish that the decision made on 14 March 2013 was irrational or otherwise unlawful. The court was concerned with that decision, rather than the claimant’s entire housing history.
4. Fresh application and interim protection. The claimant could make a fresh application supported by medical evidence if his or his family’s circumstances had changed. The court could not quash the decision on the present application, but ordered that the council must not destroy or dispose of the claimant’s belongings for 28 days or until the council had considered the fresh application. The order was made against Apex only.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the renewed application followed refusal of permission by a single judge on 15 May 2013.
• County Court: the claimant’s appeal on a point of law against the homelessness review decision was dismissed.
• Court of Appeal: an application for permission to appeal was apparently dismissed by Patten LJ.