Soooooo it turns out that the cut and paste section 184 decision letter wasn't actually a decision letter after all but rather the client's letter was just a 'Housing Options' letter.
What is highly shocking is that this letter stated despite the LA accepting the client was homeless the LA had decided that after consideration the client was not in priority need (listing 189) and that the LA would not therefore accommodate the client. No right to review was given.
Now I've subsequently found out that no 'Homeless application' was actually ever taken (it has now of course after a rather lengthy threat).
The fact that the Housing Options team are making quasi 184 decisions and not accepting HA's is frankly horrifying. These people told that they are not in priority and cannot be housed can hardly be expected to understand that they can make a 'proper' Homeless application.
Hardly suprising with letters such as these that LA's homeless statistics look so good.
The letter is going to the ombudsman. I would like a Judge to look at it but not sure how! I'm sure the LA has done something unlawful! Curse my lack of brains.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Judicial review - this is gatekeeping contrary to Birmingham v Aweys (and other cases). A homeless application is made when someone turns up and says I'm homeless (or about to be). The full duty to make enquiries and issue a s.184 starts then.
Oh and I'm not shocked at all. Happens time and time again in one LA or another, till they actually get JR'd.
Aye they accepted an approach as soon as i mentioned JR. I guess you can't take it to JR if they've agreed to take an HA or can you?
Always annoying these as the LA backdown and then just do the same thing to the 99 pct of people that don't get advice.
No JR if application accepted, yes. Picking off JR cases is always a problem.
Hi all, I work for a local authority. I am amazed that LA's issue a letter with S.184 as title and yet insist that an application has not been taken. I actually saw one yesterday from the housing advice side of a Local authority (won't mention name). This is quite unfortunate and a mockery.
However, not many LA do this as they know the legal implications. But it is not only the LAs that are unreasonable. Last week (Tuesday), a Law centre contacted me asking for emergency accommodation for a young person. After making initial enquiries, I decided to give an appointment for Thursday (same week). I made arrangement for client to stay with her cousin (who is also the excluder) for 2 nights until that appointment date. The cousin agreed. When I got back to the Law Centre, the lady insisted we had to pick her up that night. She called the cousin insisting that she must not accept the client as we have an immediate duty. I thought this is commonsense.
-Mr. Options, London.
Hi Anon,
Thanks for your input, it's always interesting to know how the other side see us advice providers.
Whilst Birmingham CC vs Aweys dealt with accommodation under 193 what constitutes suitable accommodation under 188 for me is a tricky one.
Post a Comment