Wakie v Haringey LBC

The council offered Mr Wakie accommodation in February 2000. The offer letters were headed “Re: Your homelessness application”. He moved into the property but did not consider it suitable and asked for a review. The council reviewed the decision but did not change it. Wakie appealed to the local county court under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1996 (Part 7), on the basis that the council’s decision on suitability was wrong.

A judge dismissed his appeal in 2001 because the decision was not made under homelessness provisions but under the mainstream arrangements for housing allocation.

Wakie unsuccessfully brought judicial review proceedings, which concluded in 2003. During those proceedings, the council’s barrister said suitability had been determined under the homelessness provisions.

Not surprisingly, Mr Wakie applied for permission to appeal against the original judge’s decision. The Court of Appeal refused him permission. It decided that, although the offer letters had had potentially misleading headings, the offer had in fact been made under the allocation provisions. The inaccurate statement by the barrister some years later did not alter that fact. In any event, the appeal was well out-of-time

Source

Housing Today

Reference

This sorry tale emphasises the importance of housing authorities being clear in correspondence and records about whether housing is offered under homelessness obligations. If the offer is made under the ordinary allocation scheme on account of the priority a person has because they are homeless, that should be spelled out.