Kanu v London Borough of Southwark
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE AIKENS
- LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Constitutional Law
- Human Rights Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves Mr. Kanu's appeal against the Southwark Council's decision that he was not in priority need for accommodation. The Council's review officer decided that despite Mr. Kanu's mental and physical health conditions, he was not more vulnerable than an ordinary homeless person due to the support from his family. The Lambeth County Court quashed the decision, but upon appeal, the higher court reinstated it, noting that the review officer had considered all relevant factors including support networks and the legal requirements under the Housing Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010.
Judgment
Lord Justice Underhill :
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal by the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) against a decision of Mr Recorder Matthews in the Lambeth County Court dated 22 November 2013. The Recorder quashed a decision of the Council’s review officer under section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 to uphold its earlier decision that the Respondent, Mr Kanu, was not in priority need for accommodation within the meaning of section 189 (1) of the Act. The Council has been represented before us by Ms Catherine Rowlands and Mr Kanu by Mr Zia Nabi, both of whom appeared below. Their submissions were of high quality.
THE FACTS
Mr Kanu is aged 47. Although he is a national of Sierra Leone, he has lived in this country for many years and has indefinite leave to remain. He is married. He has a son, now aged 21, from an earlier relationship.
Until November 2011 Mr and Mrs Kanu were living in private rented accommodation; latterly their son was living with them too. Mr Kanu was on the Council’s housing list. In 2009 he applied for “medical priority” which would entitle him to be placed in a higher band on the list. In June 2011 he made an application for accommodation on the basis that he was homeless, but this was refused on the basis that he was not (at that stage) homeless. In connection with those applications he completed a medical assessment form giving details of various medical conditions from which he was suffering. He also submitted letters from his medical notes, emanating both from the GP practice with which he was registered and from various hospitals. These revealed, in summary, that he suffered from hepatitis B (though this was chronic and not causing any acute symptoms); back pain as a result of previous surgery, which affected his mobility; high blood pressure; and haemorrhoids. The Council’s internal Medical Assessment Service reported that he should be accorded medical priority and be placed in band 3. The assessment dated 1 July 2011 includes the observation that:
“The information already with our service and the information provided by the applicant result in this chap being at greater risk than many if street homeless. This assessment has been carried out on the assumption the applicant is homeless.”
This assessment did not, however, result in a property being offered to him.
In September 2011 Mr Kanu was given notice to quit, and on 12 October the County Court issued an eviction notice effective on 11 November. The lan