Heavey v Greater London Authority

Transport for London Our Ref: Your Ref:

AC

e

15 July 2015 Mr Declan Heavey 71 Queens Road West London E13 OPE

Transport for London Legal Windsor House 42-50 Victoria Street London SW I H OTL Fax 020 3054 3556 www.tfl.gov.uk

Dear Mr Heavey Please find enclosed by way of service the GLA's Acknowledgment Grounds of Defence in this claim.

Yours sincerely

If Anna Condliffe Legal Direct Line: 020 3054 7937 Email: annacondliffe@tfl.gov.uk Please note we do not accept service by email Enc.

MAYOR OF LONDON

of Service and

RECEIVED IN--AOUINISTRATIw.: COURT OFFICE

Judicial Review Acknowledgment

1 ~ JUL 2015

of Servic

E

..

-

Name and address of person to be s'_e d ..

--_. .. _--Name (1) Declan Heavey (2) Single Homeless Project (ref: Liz Rut herfoord)

__

••1... - J.-~

•

In the High Court of Justice

Administrative Court

~---14laimNo. Claimant(s)

C0/2872f2015

Declsn Heavey

(including ref)

Defendant(s)

Greater London Authority

Interested Parties

Single Homeless Project

AddreS$

(1) 71 Queens Road West, London E13

OPE

(2) 245 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X BQY ._ ..

SECTION A Tick the appropriate

box

1. I intend to contest all of the claim complete sections B, C, D and F 2_ I intend to contest part of the claim complete section F

3. I do not intend to contest the claim 4. The defendant

(interested party) is a court or tribunal and intends to make a submission.

complete sections B, C and F

5. The defendant (interested party) is a court or tribunal and does no1 intend to make a submission.

6. The applicant has indicated that this is a claim to which the Aarhus Convention applies.

Note:

complete sections Band F

D

complete sections E and F

If the application seeks to judicially review the decision of a court or tribunal, the court or tribunal need only provide the Administrative Court with as much evidence as it can about the decision to help the Administrative Court perform its judicial function.

SECTION B fnsert the name and address of any person you consider should be added as an interested party.

address

address

ITelePhone no.

I""'" ress odd

-I [Fax no.

.. _ .._-_.

ITelePhone no.

I·~a;,add""

1 of 4 N462 Judidal review Acknowledgment of service (04.13) This form is reproduced from http://hmclsformffnderJustice.qov.uIrIHMCTSlFormFinder.do sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v2.0

J

I

Fax no.

© Crown copyright 2013 and is subject to Crown copyright protection. Contains public

SECTION C Summary of grounds for contesting the claim. If you are contesting only part of the claim, set out which part before you ive our rounds for contestin it. If au are a court or tribunal filin a submission, lease indicate that this is the case.

Please see attached Grounds.

20f4 N462 Judicial review Acknowledgment of service (04.13) This form is reproduced from http://hmctsformfinder.iustice.gov.uklUMCTSIFormnnder.do sector infonnation licensed under the Open Government Licence v2.0

Š Crown copyright 2013 and is subject to Crown copyright protection. Contains public

'.

-

SECTION D Give details of any directions you will be asking the court to make, or tick the box to indicate that a separate application notice is attached.

~/A

If you are seeking a dlrection that this matter be heard at an Administrative Court venue other than that at which this claim was issued, you should complete, lodge and serve on all other parties Form N464 with this acknowledgment of service.

SECTION E Response to the claimant's contention that the claim is an Aarhus claim

DYes D

Do you deny that the claim is an Aarhus Convention claim?

No

If Yes, please set out your grounds for denial in the box below.

SECTION F

"delete 9S appropriate

*(+b9Iieve)(The defendant believes) that the facts stated in this form are true. *1am duly authorised by the defendant to sign this statement.

(If signing on

behalf of firm or company,

court or tribune!)

Position

SO!J

Qr office held c..\ TtJ

R

~AN5(OKC

fo~

LQ;.j"90tV

b~Oy~~ ~;~1 ISI.OO.4-c-~~ ~f!____..:__ your solicitor or litigation friend)

.

Give an address to which notices about this case can be sent to you

If you have instructed counsel, please give their name address and contact details below.

nama

Anna Condliffe, Transport for London Legal address

address

Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street London SW1 H OTL

IFaxno.

E路mail

address

annacondliffe@tfl.gov.uk

----j

.._IT_el_e_Ph_O_"_e_no_"

_,1

Lax~o.

I

E-mail address

Completed forms, together with a copy, should be lodged with the Administrative Court Office (court address, over the page), at which this claim was issued within 21 days of service of the claim upon you, and further copies should be served on the Claimant(s), interested parties within 7 days of lodgement with the Court.

any other Oefendant(s)

and any

30'4 N462 Judicial review Acknowledgment of service (04.13) This form is reproduced from hftp://hmctsformfinder,juslice.gov.uklHMCTSIFormFinder,do sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v?O

漏 Crown copyright 2013 and is subject to Crown copyright protection. Contains public.

Administrative

Court addresses

•

Administrative Court in London Administrative Court Office, Room C315, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, london, WC2A 2LL.

•

Administrative Court in Birmingham Administrative Court Office, Birmingham Civil Justice Centre, Priory Courts, 33 Bull Street, Birmingham B4 60S.

•

Administrative Court in Wales Administrative Court Office, Cardiff Civil Justice Centre, 2 Park Street, Cardiff, CF10 1ET .:

•

Administrative Court in Leeds Administrative Court Office, Leeds Combined Court Centre, 1 Oxford Row, Leeds, LS1 3BG.

•

Administrative Court in Manchester Administrative Court Office, Manchester Civil Justice Centre, 1 Bridge Street West, Manchester, M3 3FX.

40(4 N462 Judicial review Acknowledgment of service (0413) © Crown copyright 2013 This form is reproduced from hflp:Jlhmctsfcrmfinder.jusfice.gov. tlklHMCTSlFormFinderdo and is subject to Crown copyright protection. Contains public sector infonnation licensed under the Open Govemment licence v2.0

CO/2872/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT BETWEEN THE QUEEN on the application of Declan Heavey Claimant -and-

The Greater London Authority

Defendant -and -

Single Homeless Project Interested Party

DEFENDANT'S GROUNDS OF OPPOSITION TO THE CLAIM

1.

The Claimant describes

seeks permission

to bring

a judicial

in his claim form as "the Defendant's

review of a decision which he

decision to uphold the Claimant

his wife's referral from GLA Housing First to Clearing HouselT~T the 2014/15 Pilot Funding Agreement

between GLA

and

in contravention

of

and SHP at Schedule 2." The

date of the decision is said to be 23 March 2015.

2.

For the reasons set out in these Grounds, misconceived.

The Defendant respectfully

the Defendant considers

that the claim is

asks the Court to refuse permission

to declare the claim to be totally without merit.

and

Background The Clearing House 3,

In 2011 the Department responsibility services.

& Local Government

for Communities

devolved

to the Defendant for the provision of pan-London

rough sleeping

This included the services provided by the Clearing

partnership

with housing providers

housing. the role of the Clearing support of designated

and organisations

House. Working in

which refer rough sleepers for

House is to co-ordinate

the letting, management

Rough Sleeper Initiative (RSI) properties

sleepers with support needs can access suitable accommodation made of RSI housing stock.

The GLA currently commissions

and

so that verified rough and best use is

St Mungo's Broadway

to provide Clearing House services.

4.

Traditionally,

tenancies

granted for Clearing House properties are for two years: with

an option to renew. There is an expectation

that all Clearing House tenants have to

engage with a tenancy support team (TST) and will have an allocated support worker to ensure that they receive appropriate

support to prevent them from returning to

sleeping rough, to assist them to maintain their tenancy and to help them move on.

The Housing First Project 5,

GLA Housing First was

a

years, finishing in March

pilot project commissioned

in March 2012 for a period of 3

2015. Its aim was to provide small numbers of homeless

people and rough sleepers in London with stable (at least two year) tenancies in private, social or council housing in circumstances otherwise

where their support needs may

have excluded them from access to such housing. The housing used for

this project came from the RSI housing stock managed 6.

by the Clearing House.

Under the project, clients were first provided with accommodation support with practical tenancy-related

and then received

issues from Housing First support workers

They also had the option of further support such as training and coaching, with the aim of helping clients to sustain their tenancies.

However, receipt of such support

was not a condition of the tenancy.

7.

To provide the support services,

GLA commissioned

3 charitable organisations,

Including the Interested Party, Single Homeless Project (SHP). into a funding agreement

(the Agreement)

The GLA entered

with SHP dated 13th March 2014, a copy

of which has been attached to the Claim Form.

8.

The Claimant and his wife became Housing First clients on provided with accommodation

17 May 2014 and were

by Family Mosaic Housing Association.

Support

services were made available by SHP.

The decision 9.

under challenge

On 4 September 2014, following a decision by the GLA not to extend the Housing First pilot due to lack of funding,

SHP wrote to the Claimant to inform him that the 3

year GLA Housing First pilot would be coming to an end in March 2015.

:: .

,

10.

The Agreement

provides at clause 3.1 that it shall continue in force until 31 March

2015. Schedule 2 of the Agreement sets out milestones for the project, noting that by 31 March 2015 "secure exit plans" should be in place for all clients still in tenancies

a1 that point. There is no explanation

what constitutes

11.

or definition in the Agreement

a "secure exit pian".

SHP informed the Claimant that it had been asked Housing

First tenants,

Since SHP's involvement

March 2015, alternative arrangements

to

put in place exit strategies

for

in the project was to end on 31

were necessary.

It was decided as part of the

2014 that all Housing First tenants would be referred back

exit strategy in September

to the Clearing House for assessment, tenancies

of

with TST support.

to ensure that they felt able to manage their

In other words, at the end of the Housing First pilot, the

tenants would revert to being standard Clearing House tenants and as such would fall to be referred for support to the TST like all other Clearing House tenants, Defendant

considered

it important to ensure that arrangements

former Housing First tenants so that they continued

The

were in place for

to have support at the end of the

project.

12,

It is evident from the statement Claimant

of facts and grounds in the Claim Form that the

objects to the decision to refer him to St Mungo's

{the "referral decision"). (by 4 September

However,

Broadway/Clearing

House

because the referral decision was taken in 2014

2014 at the very latest) he is now far too late to challenge

that

A claimant in judicial review proceedings must bring his claim "promptly" and in any event within 3 montt:s of the decision decision in judicial review proceedings. being challenged,

13,

It may be for this reason that the Claimant challenge

as being the Defendant's

referral decision.

has identified the decision under

In fact, the Defendant's

letter of 23 March 2015 (which was

attached to the Claim Form) was a response letter.

on 23 March 2015 to uphold the

"decision"

to the Claimant's

pre-action

protocol

It did not amount to a new decision and the GLA has not reviewed the earlier

decision or taken any new decision regarding

the Claimant's

tenancy.

Alleged illegality 14,

As set out above, the Defendant

denies that the Claimant

which is susceptible

by judicial review.

to challenge

principle a decision which could be challenged,

has identified any decision

Even assuming

the Claimant

that there is in

has not advanced

any

arguable legal grounds which would justify the grant of permission.

15.

The basis of the Claimant's

claim is that the "decision" to uphold the referral decision

is in breach of the Agreement, referred to in the milestones

because it does not constitute in Schedule 2. The Claimant

a "secure exit plan" as

considers

that referral to

Clearing House with support from TST is not a "secure exit plan" because the nature of the tenancies

provided

under Housing First.

by Clearing House differs from those that were offered

17.

Although

the nature of the tenancies

offered by Housing First and Clearing House

may be different, this does not give the Claimant any arguable legal basis for seeking to challenge

the "decision".

(i) The Agreement

In particular:

does not define what is meant by a "secure exit plan" and it is not

a term of art. The GLA, acting reasonably and within its statutory powers, was entitled to choose Clearing House as a replacement

for the Housing First pilot. There

is no basis on which that decision can be said to be unlawful. (ii) The Claimant can have had no expectation continue beyond March

that the Housing First pilot would

2015 - it was always intended to be and was consistently

referred to as a pilot, as illustrated

by the date of termination

Claimant has been aware of this fact since

of the Agreement.

The

4 September 2014 at the latest.

(iii) The change from Housing First to Clearing House does not give rise to any breach of the Claimant's

human rights, as alleged or at all.

(iv) There is no legal basis for the Claimant's proceedings; damages

attempt to seek damages

in these

the Claimant has not identified any cause of action in respect of which

could be recoverable.

Relief sought 18.

The Claimant seeks a quashing

order in respect of the alleged "decision"

but it is not

clear what he hopes to achieve: the Housing First project is at an end so continuation of the tenancy on that basis is not an option.

Conclusion 19.

For the reasons set out in these Grounds, the Defendant submits that permission this claim should be refused.

In the Defendant's

declared totally without merit.

20.

The Defendant seeks its costs of preparing the Acknowledgment

Transport for London Legal

14 July 2015

for

submission the claim should also be

of Service.