In this Live Stream we talk about ….
Appeals under Section 204A Against A Refusal To Provide An Appellant With Accommodation Pending The Outcome of The Main Section 204 Appeal
You might have throught that if someone is able to win an appeal under Section 204A of the Housing Act 1996 (“the Act”) then the council would be required to accommodate them. Not so.
In Quadir v Tower Hamlets LBC, 3 March 2011 (2012) April Legal Action, p.47, Central London Civil Justice Centre, which held that: ‘The appeal itself was on a point of law, and the grounds of appeal, skeleton argument and evidence had all been prepared. There was little for the claimant to do except wait for the hearing. Even if there was some prejudice, it dd not amount to substantial prejudice.’ There was no good reason for the appellant not to be street homeless.
In the case referred to in the Duncan Lewis post below the court held that even if the appeal could be allowed the council would not be ordered to provide accommodation unless it could be shown that the lack of accommodation would prejudice the ability of the Appellant to pursue the appeal. This rendered the whole appeal process a waste of time. You could win the Section 204A appeal but still have nothing to show for it.
Alice concludes there are few cases where a mandatory order under s.204A HA 1996 is likely to be made but like the rest of us has kept on trying. PB will definitely provide encouragement to show that after getting through the obstacles that a County Court system on the verge of being underfunded out of existence presents it might be possible to get a remedy for the client.
I have had a very negative view about the role of Section 204A appeals in providing any protection for homeless persons against being street homeless pending the outcome of what may prove to be a successful main decision against a refusal by a council to assist them. I wrote – Section 204A Homelessness Appeals – No Right of Appeal At All back in 2015. PB is a step in the direction of providing some protection to people with “exceptional circumstances.”