County court appeals: identifying a point of law

Certain decisions made by the Housing Executive can be reviewed by following a procedure laid out in the Housing Amendment Act (NI) 2011.  These include decisions on whether or not someone is a Full Duty Applicant and on whether the accommodation offered to a homeless person is reasonable.

The applicant also has a right to appeal to the county court if the review is unsuccessful, but they can only appeal on a point of law.

How to identify a point of law?

Generally a point of law arises when a public authority has

• misunderstood the law
• been procedurally unfair
• been irrational/unreasonable or acted disproportionally

Reasons for decision

To succeed in a homeless application, an applicant must clear 4 hurdles. They must be

• homeless or threatened with homelessness
• eligible for assistance
• in priority need and
• not intentionally homeless.

If the Housing Executive believes that an applicant has failed to show how they meet any of these hurdles, the decision maker must send the applicant a letter containing reasons for this decision.  The letter should set out which hurdle or hurdles have not been satisfied and explain why the Housing Executive has reached this decision.  If the Housing Executive’s initial decision is that the applicant has failed to clear the hurdles, the applicant can request a review.  If the review decision upholds the original decision, the applicant must seek specialist legal help to check if there are grounds for appeal.

An adviser who is helping someone in this position should consider the review decision letter carefully to see if any of the points of law summarised above apply.

If the decision letter does not give reasons, that, in itself, gives grounds for review and possible appeal.

Examples of grounds for appeal identified by Housing Rights include

The legal team at Housing Rights is keen to assist anyone who believes they have grounds to appeal a negative homelessness review.  We have identified a number of grounds for appeal in recent months, including in the cases listed below. In each of these cases the Housing Executive reconsidered the applicant’s case after an appeal was lodged.

Intentionally homeless – leaving the family home

An applicant was found to be intentionally homeless as she had left the family home after “a row”.  In fact, the applicant’s mother was an alcoholic who became violent towards the applicant when drinking, causing the applicant to fear for her safety while she remained in the home. The applicant had felt unable to report the domestic violence to the police. Had the decision maker carried out proper enquiries, as required by legislation, the full circumstances would have become apparent and it would have been clear that it was not reasonable for the applicant to continue to occupy the family home.

Intentionally Homeless – evicted due to rent arrears

A client approached us because she was regarded as being intentionally homeless following an eviction from privately rented accommodation.  The decision later stated that the applicant was intentionally homeless as the landlord had evicted her due to rent arrears.  However, the landlord had in fact illegally evicted the tenant by changing the locks on the property after she had paid the rent which she owed.  

Eligibility – retaining worker status

A client was found ineligible for housing as she was an EEA national who had left her most recent employment.  The decision maker had found that she could not retain her worker status as she was not in “involuntarily employment”.  Further investigations showed that the client had been bullied out of her job and was in fact a victim of constructive dismissal and should be regarded as being “involuntarily unemployed”.

Priority need – determining vulnerability

An applicant in receipt of jobseekers allowance was determined not to be in priority need as he was not receiving any sickness or disability related benefits.  The decision maker had not carried out any investigations beyond checking the applicant’s benefits entitlement to determine whether or not he met the legal definition for “vulnerability”.  The decision maker had failed to look at all the relevant circumstances.

Checking the decision letter

An adviser should consider whether the decision letter shows

• that the decision maker has fully considered the circumstances of the applicant
• whether they have made proper enquiries
• whether they have properly applied the law and
• whether they have taken in to account all relevant factors or wrongly taken in to account irrelevant factors.

Time limit for appeals

County court appeals must be lodged within 28 days of receiving the decision to be appealed.  The court can only extend this time when there are reasonable grounds to do so.

Please call the Housing Rights advice line on 028 9024 5640 if you need advice on helping a client complete a review request.  Housing Rights can deliver training on the process for challenging a decision on homelessness or suitability of accommodation, including lodging an appeal at county court.  Contact Training Officer, Bronagh McCulla if you’d like to book any of our training for your staff.