Ajilore v London Borough of Hackney
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LADY JUSTICE GLOSTER
- LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL
- LORD JUSTICE FLOYD
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Edward Ajilore appealed to the Court of Appeal after HHJ Mitchell in the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court dismissed his challenge to Hackneys review decision finding he was not vulnerable under section 189(1)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 and thus not in priority need for housing. Ajilores case rested on depression, a risk of suicide, and the risk of relapse into Class A drug use. The Court reiterated that section 204 appeals are limited to errors of law and emphasize deference to local authority evaluative judgments. On Ground 1, the reviewing officer misread a statistic and cited Joseph Rowntree data, but those errors were not central; his decision relied chiefly on medical records and professional experience assessing ordinary homeless persons. On Grounds 2 and 3, relapse risk may constitute detriment, but the officer reasonably found Ajilores risk did not differentiate him. Ground 4 was bound by Johnson v Solihull MBC. Lady Justice Gloster delivered the lead judgment; Lord Justice Underhill concurred with additional reasons; Lord Justice Floyd agreed. The appeal was dismissed.
Judgment
Lady Justice Gloster:
Background
This is an appeal by Edward Ajilore (“the appellant”) against the order of His Honour Judge Mitchell sitting in the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court dated 22 July 2013. The court below dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the review decision dated 28 December 2012 (“the review decision”) of the respondent local housing authority, the London Borough of Hackney (“the local authority”). Permission to appeal was given by Arden LJ on 21 December 2013.
The central issue on the appeal is whether the judge erred in upholding the reviewing officer’s decision that the appellant was not vulnerable, and therefore that he was not in priority need for housing under the provisions of the Housing Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”).
The appellant experienced a troubled childhood and youth. He became involved in gang culture and crime and he became addicted to Class A drugs. According to a report from the appellant’s general practitioner (“the GP”), there was considerable emotional distress within his childhood family home.
In 2010 the appellant served 18 months of a 27-month prison sentence for possession of Class A drugs, and he was released in 2011.
Subsequently, the appellant’s mother obtained an injunction excluding him from her home after he was allegedly violent towards her.
On 4 April 2012, the appellant presented to the local authority as homeless and applied for re-housing under Part VII of the 1996 Act. At that date, the appellant stated that he was staying in a drugs den.
Part VII of the 1996 Act
For present purposes, the material provisions of the 1996 Act are sections 184, 189, 193 and 202 - 204. They provide, so far as relevant, as follows:
“ Section 184 – Inquiry into cases of homelessness or threatened homelessness
(1) If the local housing authority have reason to believe that an applicant may be homeless or threatened with homelessness, they shall make such inquiries as are necessary to satisfy themselves—
(a) whether he is eligible for assistance, and
(b) if so, whether any duty, and if so what duty, is owed to him under the following provisions of this Part.
(2) They may also make inquiries whether he has a local connection with the district of another local housing authority in England, Wales or Scotland.
(3) On completing their inquiries the authority shall notify the applicant of their decision and, so far as any issue is decided against his interests, inform him of the reasons for their deci