20.36R (Patrick) v Newham LBC (2001) 4 CCLR 48, QBD
Referring a homeless woman with care needs to a housing charity did not amount to a discharge of the duty to assess or meet her needs
Facts: Ms Patrick, a single woman who suffered from physical and mental ill health, was evicted on the ground of neighbour nuisance and found intentionally homeless. Newham had purported to discharge its duty towards her under section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, by offering her accommodation provided by a charity, which she had refused. Ms Patrick then slept rough.
Judgment: Henriques J held that Newham had failed in breach of statutory duty to assess Ms Patrick’s needs and had not discharged its duty under section 21:
27. Her solicitor in her witness statement says that she did not take up the accommodation provided by HOST because she believed she was being sent to Sunderland and not to Southwark. In any event, Southwark was a distance away from her sister and from her medical support network.
28. Since the offer of accommodation was on 28 April and the certificate of mental incapacity to handle her affairs was granted on 9 May, it requires no mental gymnastics to conclude that her decision to reject the offer of accommodation at Southwark was neither considered nor likely to have been well informed.
29. It is of particular significance that the respondent knew that solicitors were acting for the applicant as they had written on her behalf on 5 April.
30. Further, they had informed the respondent that they could obtain no clear instructions from the applicant due to her mental health and enclosed a note from her general practitioner.
31. If the respondent sought to put an end to its section 21 duties to provide accommodation, they ought in my judgment at the very least to have ensured that the applicant was legally represented when the offer was made to her to ensure not only that she understood what the offer was, both in terms of location and services offered, but also that she understood the legal consequences or potential legal consequences of refusing the offer.
32. Since she may well not have understood what was being offered and its location, I am not prepared to find that her refusal of it was unreasonable.
33. In the exercise of its duty to provide accommodation a local authority must have a concurrent duty to explain fully and to the point of comprehension any offer it may make. I am not persuaded that the local authority has discharged its duty. In my judgment the duty to provide Part III accommodation continues pursuant to section 21 of the 1948 Act.