Heavey vs London Borough of Haringey

Click here to reset form

Judicial Review Claim Form

Click here to print form

In the High Court of Justice Administrative Court

Notes for guidance are available which explain how to complete the judicial review claim form. Please read them carefully before you complete the form.

For Court use only

Seal

Administrative Court Reference No. Date filed SECTION 1 Details of the claimant(s) and defendant(s) Claimant(s) name and address(es) name

name

London Borough of Haringey

Declan Heavey address

Defendant’s or (where known) Defendant’s solicitors’ address to which documents should be sent.

Suite 101 254 Pentonville Road London N1 9JY Telephone no.

1st Defendant

name

Cllr Claire Kober Fax no.

078 8043 7681

address

Leader’s Office, 5th Floor, River Park House, 225 High Road, Wood Green, London N22 8HQ

E-mail address

dheavey@gmail.com

Claimant’s or claimant’s solicitors’ address to which documents should be sent. name

Telephone no.

Fax no.

020 8489 0000 E-mail address

claire.kober@haringey.gov.uk address

2nd Defendant name

Telephone no.

Fax no.

E-mail address

Defendant’s or (where known) Defendant’s solicitors’ address to which documents should be sent. name

Claimant’s Counsel’s details

address

name

address

Telephone no.

Fax no.

E-mail address Telephone no.

Fax no.

E-mail address

1 of 6 N461 Judicial review claim form (04.13)

© Crown copyright 2013

SECTION 2 Details of other interested parties Include name and address and, if appropriate, details of DX, telephone or fax numbers and e-mail name

name

address

address

Telephone no.

Fax no.

E-mail address

Fax no.

Telephone no.

E-mail address

SECTION 3 Details of the decision to be judicially reviewed Decision:

The Defendant's denial of a review of its decision of 16 April 2014 that the Claimant does not have a priority need for temporary accommodation.

Date of decision:

8 May 2014

Name and address of the court, tribunal, person or body who made the decision to be reviewed. name

address

1st Floor, Apex House 820 Seven Sisters Road London N15 5PQ

Carolyn Whiteley, Senior Housing Adviser Haringey Council Community Housing Services

SECTION 4 Permission to proceed with a claim for judicial review I am seeking permission to proceed with my claim for Judicial Review.

Is this application being made under the terms of Section 18 Practice Direction 54 (Challenging removal)?

Are you making any other applications? If Yes, complete Section 8.

Yes ✔

Is the claimant in receipt of a Community Legal Service Fund (CLSF) certificate?

✔

No

Yes Yes

No

✔

No

Are you claiming exceptional urgency, or do you need this application determined within a certain time scale? If Yes, complete Form N463 and file this with your application.

✔

Yes

No

Have you complied with the pre-action protocol? If No, give reasons for non-compliance in the box below.

✔

Yes

No

✔ Yes

No

Have you issued this claim in the region with which you have the closest connection? (Give any additional reasons for wanting it to be dealt with in this region in the box below). If No, give reasons in the box below.

2 of 6

Does the claim include any issues arising from the Human Rights Act 1998?

If Yes, state the articles which you contend have been breached in the box below.

✔ Yes

No

Article 6 (Right to a fair trial): "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

SECTION 5 Detailed statement of grounds ✔

set out below

attached

In a judicial review letter before claim dated 3 May 2014, the Claimant challenged the decision of the Defendant not to provide him with a review notice in relation to its decision of 16 April 2014 that the Claimant does not have a priority need for temporary accommodation. In reply to the Claimant’s pre-action letter, the Defendant would only offer the Claimant another assessment, not a review of its decision of 16 April that he does not have a priority need; and this notwithstanding his personal circumstances and medical condition as revealed in his pre-action letter taken together with its enclosures. Failing the remedy being sought in Section 7 below, the Claimant seeks permission to proceed with a claim for Judicial Review on the ground of procedural unfairness.

SECTION 6 Aarhus Convention claim

I contend that this claim is an Aarhus Convention claim

Yes

✔ No

If Yes, indicate in the following box if you do not wish the costs limits under CPR 45.43 to apply.

If you have indicated that the claim is an Aarhus claim set out the grounds below

SECTION 7 Details of remedy (including any interim remedy) being sought A mandatory order that compels the Defendant to carry out a review of its decision of 16 April 2014 that the Claimant does not have a priority need for temporary accommodation, and provide the Claimant with a review notice that includes details of what steps to take next if he does want to appeal to HMCTS following a review.

SECTION 8 Other applications I wish to make an application for:Permission to be heard/considered by a Judge as a matter of urgency. Please see completed Request for Urgent Consideration, Form N463, which accompanies this claim form.

3 of 6

SECTION 9 Statement of facts relied on

1. Since 14 April 2013, the Claimant and his wife have been street homeless. On 29 August 2013, the Claimant applied for judicial review against the Commissioner of Police for the City of London and Home Secretary following the decision of the former not to ask Broadway Homelessness and Support to support him and his wife to access the private rented sector. On 6 February 2014, Deputy High Court Judge Bidder ruled: “The refusal of the First Defendant to ask the charity ‘Broadway’ to engage or help the Claimant and his wife with their welfare or accommodation is not arguably unreasonable. It is not its job to intervene in any disagreement between a charity and those seeking that charity’s help.

The Claimant has alternative remedies which he should follow.” See order in Supporting Documents (SD), p. 1.

2. On 26 March 2014, the Claimant and his wife were informed by the Single Homeless Project (SHP) that the Family Mosaic Housing Association had a flat for them in the London Borough of Newham, but the property could not be viewed until the end of April because their SHP caseworker would be on annual leave for three weeks (SD, pp. 11-12).

On 14 April, the Claimant attended Charing Cross Hospital and was diagnosed with asthma and a chest infection. He attended the Royal London Hospital the following night, the discharge summary stating: “Was assessed and advised to continue with current treatment, but if situation worsening to reattend as chest infection could worsen to pneumonia. If possible should try to find accommodation off the street” (SD, pp. 5-6). Nonetheless, the following day, on 16 April, the Defendant decided that the Claimant does not have a priority need for temporary accommodation (SD, pp. 22-23).

3. On 17 April 2014, the Claimant asked for a review of the Defendant’s decision of 16 April that he does not have a priority need for temporary accommodation (SD, pp. 4-6). On 3 May, in the absence of a response to his request for a review, the Claimant sent the Defendant a letter before claim for judicial review (SD, pp. 2-3); he pointed out inter alia that he and his wife have been forced to spend their nights sleeping in night buses since 23 April, the Claimant’s wife having been threatened the night before by two City of London Police officers with an arrest on the trumped-up charge of assaulting a police officer (SD, pp. 7-8). The City of London Police Professional Standards Directorate has made first contact with the Claimant about the two officers who stopped him and his wife on the night of 22 April for sleeping rough (SD, p. 24). On 8 May, in reply to the Claimant’s pre-action letter, the Defendant would only offer the Claimant another assessment, not a review of its decision of 16 April that he does not have a priority need (SD, pp. 13-14); and this notwithstanding his personal circumstances and medical condition as revealed in his pre-action letter taken together with its enclosures (SD, pp. 2-12).

4. In a further email on 8 May 2014, the Defendant asserts that when the Claimant attended Apex House on 16 April he was seen by a Customer Services Officer who did not give him a formal decision on his homeless application (SD, p.

20). In the First Assessment correspondence that followed (SD, pp. 16-23), the Claimant avers that he was also seen on 16 April by the Manager of Apex House Customer Services Centre, Pamela Rwezahura, who confirmed in writing that he had just been assessed as not having a priority need for temporary accommodation, notwithstanding that the night before a GP at the Royal London Hospital diagnosed that he was suffering from asthma and a concurrent chest infection that could develop into pneumonia over the following 2/3 days if the antibiotic medication prescribed on 14 April continued to have little effect. Ms Rwezahura directed in writing that the Claimant next needed to request a review of the decision from the Manager of the Housing Advice and Options Team, Carolyn Whiteley, which the Claimant did on 17 April (see paragraph 3 above). The Claimant’s exhibit for the Court with Ms Rwezahura’s written direction does not allow for an alternative read or supplemental interpretation, as seemingly conceded by Ms Whiteley on 9 May (SD, pp. 16-17).

5. As noted in paragraph 2 above, the Claimant and his wife were nominated for a Family Mosiac flat on 26 March 2014.

After the Claimant and his wife viewed the flat on 29 April, their move-in date scheduled for no later than 5 May was postponed on 2 May without a new date set, the reason being that surveyors have to pass the property; and this notwithstanding an email from the SHP dated 23 April, stating: "I received a message yesterday from Cassa at Family Mosaic to advise that the surveyors have passed the property as ready to let last week Thursday and a viewing should be available this week, or next week according to availability" (SD, pp. 9-12). The Claimant therefore seeks a mandatory order that compels the Defendant to carry out a review of its decision of 16 April that the Claimant does not have a priority need for temporary accommodation, and provide the Claimant with a review notice that includes the information he needs to be able to appeal. Failing this, the Claimant seeks permission to proceed with a claim for Judicial Review on the ground of procedural unfairness.

Statement of Truth I believe (The claimant believes) that the facts stated in this claim form are true.

Full name Declan Jude Heavey Name of claimant’s solicitor’s firm Signed

Position or office held (if signing on behalf of firm or company)

Claimant (’s solicitor)

4 of 6

SECTION 10 Supporting documents If you do not have a document that you intend to use to support your claim, identify it, give the date when you expect it to be available and give reasons why it is not currently available in the box below.

Please tick the papers you are filing with this claim form and any you will be filing later.

Statement of grounds

included attached

Statement of the facts relied on

included

Application to extend the time limit for filing the claim form

included attached

Application for directions

included attached

attached

Any written evidence in support of the claim or application to extend time Where the claim for judicial review relates to a decision of a court or tribunal, an approved copy of the reasons for reaching that decision ✔

Copies of any documents on which the claimant proposes to rely A copy of the legal aid or CSLF certificate (if legally represented) Copies of any relevant statutory material A list of essential documents for advance reading by the court (with page references to the passages relied upon)

If Section 18 Practice Direction 54 applies, please tick the relevant box(es) below to indicate which papers you are filing with this claim form: a copy of the removal directions and the decision to which the application relates

included attached

a copy of the documents served with the removal directions including any documents which contains the Immigration and Nationality Directorate’s factual summary of the case

included

a detailed statement of the grounds

included attached

5 of 6

attached

Reasons why you have not supplied a document and date when you expect it to be available:-

Signed Claimant (’s Solicitor)

Click here to print form 6 of 6