NS, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Office
[2023] EWHC 2675 (Admin)
ZR v London Borough of Haringey & Anor
14 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1476 (Admin)
High Court
A refugee challenged the council and the Home Office for not giving him enough time to find a new home after his asylum claim was accepted. The court said the council acted fairly and the Home Office’s changes weren't illegal. The judge also canceled an earlier order that gave the refugee temporary housing, and said the refugee must pay the council's legal costs.
Key Facts
- •Claimant (ZR), a 25-year-old Sudanese refugee, challenges the London Borough of Haringey's (1st Defendant) failure to provide accommodation and the Home Office's (2nd Defendant) shortened notice periods for asylum support cessation.
- •The Home Office changed its practice regarding notice periods for asylum support cessation, initially giving notice from the grant letter (August practice), then from the BRP issuance (September practice).
- •The Claimant received a shorter notice period than the previously understood 28 days from BRP receipt.
- •The Claimant applied to Haringey for housing and was deemed not to have priority need. He subsequently became homeless before the council's decision.
- •Lang J initially granted interim relief ordering Haringey to provide accommodation, later set aside by Sweeting J.
- •The Claimant's claim against Haringey was largely overtaken by events (accommodation provided).
- •The claim against the Home Office challenges the legality of the August and September practices regarding notice periods.
Legal Principles
Asylum seekers are entitled to a minimum 28-day notice period or 7-day notice from the notice to quit, whichever is greater, before asylum support ends.
Immigration Act 1999, Part VI; Asylum Support Regulations 2000, Regulations 2(2), 2(2A), and 22
Local Housing Authorities have duties regarding homelessness, including interim accommodation for those with priority need under section 188 Housing Act 1996.
Housing Act 1996, sections 184, 188, 189, 189B, 202, 204
The court will only interfere with a Local Housing Authority's discretion regarding interim accommodation in exceptional cases (high hurdle).
R v Camden LBC ex p Mohammed; R v Brighton & Hove Council ex p Nacion
Decisions under section 184 Housing Act 1996 can be communicated electronically, and the recipient bears responsibility for acknowledging the message.
Dharmaraj v Hounslow LBC; Homelessness Code of Guidance 2023
Article 3 ECHR prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 3
Outcomes
Permission for judicial review refused against the First Defendant (London Borough of Haringey).
The claimant's claim was largely overtaken by events; the council's decision was not irrational, and the claimant's homelessness was due to not meeting priority need criteria. The court application was based on a false premise, and the council's methods of communication were reasonable.
Permission for judicial review refused against the Second Defendant (Home Office).
Neither the August nor September practices were unlawful; the claimant suffered minimal prejudice from the September practice, and his homelessness stemmed from the First Defendant's decision, not the Home Office's practice. The claim was deemed academic.
Lang J's order granting interim relief against the First Defendant is set aside.
The order was based on a factual error (that a decision hadn't been made).
Claimant ordered to pay the First Defendant's costs.
The claim against the First Defendant was largely unfounded and the First Defendant's actions were justified.
Similar Cases
BN, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hounslow
[2023] EWHC 3083 (Admin)
SB & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2701 (Admin)
Comte Leaf Saint Sepulchre, R (on the application of) v The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea
[2023] EWHC 2913 (Admin)
HA & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] EWHC 1876 (Admin)