R (H) v London Borough of Southwark [2016] EWHC 1665 (Admin), 8 July 2016
H was a 58-year-old woman with a long history of mental health problems and a diagnosis of depression. She applied to Southwark as homeless in June 2015. It was decided that although she was homeless, she did not have a priority need.
On 1 October 2015, H then made a second homeless application. New evidence was submitted on her behalf, from a clinical psychologist, referring to previous suicide attempts, suicidal ideation and assessing H as ‘quite a high suicide risk’. Again, she was found not to have a priority need.
This decision was upheld by a review decision issued on 3 February 2016. On 23 February 2016, H was advised that she could not appeal this decision. Her temporary accommodation was due to end a week later.
The following day, H (by her account) formed the intention of killing herself, and embarked on a plan to do so, taking a bus toward Blackfriars Bridge, intending to either jump from the bridge or throw herself under a train.
While she was on the bus, H received a call from her GP – who was concerned for her health – who managed to persuade her to attend the surgery. She did so, and while there contemplated throwing herself out of the window. She was seen by the GP who recorded her as having ‘clear suicidal ideation’
Following this she was referred urgently to the mental health team who noted that she was having active suicidal thoughts with plausible evidence of plans and intent, stemming from her accommodation situation.
On 1 March 2016, H made a further homeless application based on these circumstances. Southwark refused to accept the application asserting that there had been no material change in the circumstances and the facts which led to the previous adverse decision.
Amanda Yip QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) allowed H’s application for judicial review. In deciding whether the duty to accept the application had arisen the question was whether it was based on exactly the same facts as the previous application. See R v Harrow LBC Ex p. Fahia [1998] 1 WLR 1396, (1998) 30 HLR 1124 and Rikha Begum v Tower Hamlets LBC [2005] EWCA Civ 340, [2005] HLR 34.
In this instance, the events of 24 February 2016 marked a new development which resulted in new medical evidence. As such the application did not raise exactly the same facts and Southwark had erred in failing to accept it.
Liz Davies acted for the Claimant, H.
