Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T04:44:04.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Homelessness and the ‘over-judicialisation’ of welfare

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

Emma Laurie Open the ORCID record for Emma Laurie [Opens in a new window]
Emma Laurie*
Affiliation:
Law School, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
*
*Author email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Members of the senior judiciary have expressed concern about the ‘over-judicialisation’ of welfare in the context of homelessness decision-making and adjudication. This paper examines how those fears have been manifested and makes a link with the concept of proportionate dispute resolution (PDR). It argues that the statutory scheme incorporates elements of PDR and judges should therefore refrain from introducing additional layers. The courts’ denial of the application of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to the homelessness context is disputed, and the paper makes the case for continuing rigorous judicial oversight of front-line decision-making, recommending that attention is focused on assessing procedural safeguards rather than disputing the ambit of Article 6.

Keywords

administrative decision-makingproportionate dispute resolutionhomelessnessArticle 6 ECHRover-judicialisation
Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 39 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I am extremely grateful to Professor Robert Thomas, Professor David Gurnham and Dr Jacob Eisler for their insightful comments on earlier drafts. I also thank the journal's anonymous reviewers for their valuable input. All errors remain my own.

References

1 Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.

2 Fitzpatrick, S and Pleace, N ‘The statutory homelessness system in England: a fair and effective rights-based model?’ (2012) 27 Housing Studies 232CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 233.

3 Housing Act 1996, s 175.

4 Runa Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council [2003] UKHL 5 at [5] per Lord Bingham.

5 Public Health England Guidance Homelessness: Applying All Our Health, 2 November 2018.

6 Loveland, I ‘Reforming the homelessness legislation? Exploring the constitutional and administrative legitimacy of judicial law-making’ (2018) PL 299Google Scholar at 306.

7 Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council [2009] UKHL 7 at [50] per Lord Neuberger.

8 Department for Constitutional Affairs Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals Cm 6243 (July 2004) para 2.2.

9 Ministry of Justice Administrative Justice and Tribunals: Final Report of Progress against the Strategic Work Programme 2013–2016, Cm 9319 (March 2017) p 3.

10 Adler, M ‘Tribunal reform: proportionate dispute resolution and the pursuit of administrative justice’ (2006) 69(6) MLR 258CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 259.

11 House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee Oversight of Administrative Justice Written Evidence – Evidence submitted by the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council, p 20.

12 Elliott, M and Thomas, R ‘Tribunal justice and proportionate dispute resolution’ (2012) CLJ 297CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 298. More broadly see Lord Sumption ‘The limits of law’ the 27th Sultan Azlan Shah Lecture, Kuala Lumpur, 20 November 2013, available at https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-131120.pdf (accessed 26 May 2020).

13 See eg Palmer, E Judicial Review, Socio-Economic Rights and the Human Rights Act (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007)Google Scholar; Wang, D ‘Social rights adjudication and the nirvana fallacy’ (2018) PL 482Google Scholar; King, J ‘The justiciability of resource allocation’ (2007) 70(2) MLR 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Edwards, RA ‘Judicial deference under the Human Rights Act’ (2002) 65 MLR 859CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.

15 Department of the Environment Circular No 18/74 (London: HMSO, 1974).

16 Hansard HC Deb, vol 936, col 882, 27 July 1977, Stephen Ross.

17 Robertson, D Judicial Discretion in the House of Lords (Clarendon, 1998) p 349Google Scholar.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid, p 341.

20 Above n 7.

21 Loveland, above n 6, and Arden, A ‘All change – the Supreme Court in 2014–2015’ (2015) JHL 79Google Scholar.

22 Housing Act 1996, s 193.

23 Housing Act 1996, s 198.

24 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities (February 2018). MHCLG considers the online version of the Code to be the most authoritative. It is available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/homelessness-code-of-guidance-for-local-authorities (accessed 26 May 2020).

25 Housing Act 1996, s 182.

26 Care Act 2014.

27 Children Act 1989, ss 17 and 20. See also duties under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000.

28 Equality Act 2010, ss 4, 13, 19 and 149.

29 Housing Act 1996, s 189.

30 Housing Act 1996, s 175(3).

31 Hotak v Southwark London Borough Council [2015] UKSC 30.

32 Housing Act 1996, ss 206 and 208.

33 Housing Act 1996, s 198.

34 Housing Act 1996, Pt VI.

35 Housing Act 1996, s 206.

36 Housing Act 1996, s 208 and the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012, SI 2012/2601.

37 cf Nzolameso v Westminster City Council [2015] UKSC 22.

38 See the various reports cited in HC Library ‘Households in temporary accommodation (England)’ Research Briefing No 02110 10 February 2020, pp 7–8.

39 Department for Constitutional Affairs Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals Cm 6243 (July 2004) para 2.2. Lord Woolf employed the concept of proportionality in his report into civil justice: Lord Woolf Access to Justice: Interim Report (Lord Chancellor's Department, 1995) and Lord Woolf Access to Justice: Final Report (Lord Chancellor's Department, 1996).

40 DCA, above n 39, para 1.7.

41 Ibid, para 10.3.

42 Ministry of Justice Administrative Justice and Tribunals: Final report of progress against the Strategic Work Programme 2013–2016 Cm 9310 (March 2017) p 30.

43 Ibid, p 5.

44 Laurie, E ‘Assessing the Upper Tribunal's potential to deliver administrative justice’ (2012) PL 288Google Scholar at 291.

45 Elliott, M and Thomas, R ‘Tribunal justice and proportionate dispute resolution’ (2012) CLJ 297CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 299.

46 Mashaw, JL Bureaucratic Justice (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

47 Wikeley, N ‘Future directions for tribunals: a UK perspective’ in Creyke, R (ed) Tribunals in the Common Law World (Sydney: The Federation Press, 2008) p 182Google Scholar.

48 DCA, above n 39, para 2.4.

49 Law Commission Housing: Proportionate Dispute Resolution Consultation Paper No 180 (20 March 2006) para 3.71.

50 Law Commission Housing: Proportionate Dispute Resolution Law Com No 309 (May 2008) para 5.97.

51 Housing Act 1996, ss 202–204.

52 Law Commission Administrative Law and Statutory Appeals Law Com No 226 (October 1994) para 2.26.

53 Ibid, para 1.11.

54 Puhlhofer v Hillingdon London Borough Council [1986] AC 484 at 518.

55 Ibid, at 518.

56 Ibid, at 510.

57 Law Commission, above n 52, para 2.24.

58 Council on Tribunals Annual Reports 1989/90 cited in Law Commission, above n 52, para 2.18.

59 Law Commission, above n 52, para 2.25.

60 Housing Act 1996, ss 202 and 203 and the Homelessness (Review Procedure etc) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/223 which replace the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999, SI 1999/71.

61 Ibid, reg 5(3).

62 Housing Act 1996, s 204.

63 Danesh v Kensington and Chelsea [2006] EWCA Civ 1404 at [30] per Lord Neuberger.

64 Runa Begum, above n 4.

65 Thomas, R and Tomlinson, J ‘A different tale of judicial power: administrative review as a problematic response to the judicialisation of tribunals’ (2019) PL 537Google Scholar.

66 It was introduced in the social security context in 2013: Welfare Reform Act 2012, s 102, which amended Social Security Act 1998, s 12.

67 For example Australia: see Cowan, D et al. The Appeal of Internal Review (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004) p 4Google Scholar.

68 Cowan et al, above n 67, p 5; Thomas, R and Tomlinson, J ‘Remodelling social security appeals (again): the advent of online tribunals’ (2018) JSSL 84Google Scholar at 86.

69 Cowan, D et al. ‘Reconsidering mandatory reconsideration’ (2017) PL 215Google Scholar.

70 P Gray The Second Independent Review of the Personal Independence Payment Assessment (TSO, 2017) para 29.

71 Thomas and Tomlinson, above n 68, at 86.

72 Thomas and Tomlinson, above n 65, at 537.

73 Ali v UK App No 40378/10 ECtHR, 20 October 2015 [2015] HLR 46.

74 Ibid.

75 Thomas and Tomlinson, above n 65, at 538.

76 Ibid.

77 Immigration Act 2014, s 15 substituting Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s 82.

78 Home Office Impact Assessment of Reforming Immigration Appeal Rights (TSO, 2013) p 2.

79 Thomas and Tomlinson, above n 65.

80 Luba, J QC, HHJ ‘The Bryan McGuire QC Memorial Lecture: Known unknowns: dispute resolution in homelessness’ (2017) JHL 86Google Scholar at 90.

81 For example, social security and immigration: see Thomas and Tomlinson above n 65.

82 Live tables on Homelessness Table 784, available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-homelessness#statutory-homelessness-live-tables (accessed 26 May 2020).

83 Luba, above n 80, at 91.

84 Live tables on homelessness, above n 82.

85 720 county court appeals divided by 15,470 rejected applications.

86 Cowan et al, above n 69, at 220–221.

87 Runa Begum, above n 4, at [5] per Lord Bingham.

88 Ibid, at [44].

89 Creyke, R ‘Administrative justice in Australia’ in Adler, M (ed) Administrative Justice in Context (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010) p 274Google Scholar; M Adler ‘Understanding and analysing administrative justice’ in Administrative Justice in Context p 130; and Cane, P Administrative Tribunals and Adjudication (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2009) p 218Google Scholar.

90 Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, s 8(4); Housing Act 1985, s 64(4).

91 Housing Act 1996, s 203(4).

92 See generally Arden, A et al. Homelessness and Allocations (LAG, 11th edn, 2018)Google Scholar para 12.78.

93 R v Croydon, ex p Graham (1994) 26 HLR 286.

94 Hoffmann LJ dissented.

95 Graham above n 93, at 292.

96 R v Islington London Borough Council, ex p Hinds (1996) 28 HLR 302.

97 Holmes-Moorhouse, above n 7, at [50].

98 Ibid, at [47].

99 See also Ibrahim v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 20, [2013] HLR 15.

100 R (Ahmad) v London Borough of Newham [2009] UKHL 14, [2009] HLR 31.

101 Ibid, at [46].

102 Ibid, at [46] and [62].

103 Thomas, R Administrative Justice and Asylum Appeals: A Study of Tribunal Adjudication (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2011) p 262Google Scholar.

104 Local Government Ombudsman Homelessness: How Councils Can Ensure Justice for Homeless People (2011).

105 Peaker, G ‘Gatekeeping in times of austerity’ (2012) JHL 107Google Scholar.

106 H Summers ‘Homeless women turned away by local councils “trying to keep numbers down”’ (The Independent, 12 February 2017).

107 Loveland, I Housing Homeless Persons: Administrative Law and Process (Clarendon Press, 1995) p 302CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

108 Hunter, C ‘Denying the severity of mental health problems to deny rights to the homeless’ (2007) 2(1) People, Place and Policy Online 18Google Scholar.

109 Thomas, R and Tomlinson, J ‘Mapping current issues in administrative justice: austerity and the “more bureaucratic rationality” approach’ (2017) JSWFL 39 380Google Scholar.

110 Halliday, S Judicial Review and Compliance with Administrative Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2004) p 87Google Scholar.

111 Alden, S ‘On the frontline: the gatekeeper in statutory homelessness services’ (2015) 30(6) Housing Studies 924CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 931.

112 Halliday, S ‘Institutional racism in bureaucratic decision-making: a case study in the administration of homelessness law’ (2000) 27(3) JLS 449CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 Ibid, at 464. See also D Cowan Homelessness: The (In-) Appropriate Applicant (Ashgate, 1997).

114 Halliday, above n 112, at 457.

115 Homelessness Act 2002, ss 1–3.

116 See R (on the application of Khazi) v Birmingham City Council [2010] EWHC 2576 (Admin).

117 Nabi, Z ‘Gatekeeping: lessons from the Birmingham cases’ (2012) JHL 109Google Scholar at 110.

118 Evans, A ‘Rationing device or passport to social housing? The operation of the homelessness legislation in Britain in the 1990s’ in Hutson, S and Clapham, D (eds) Homelessness: Public Policies and Private Troubles (Cassell, 1999) pp 133–154Google Scholar cited in Alden, above n 111.

119 Robinson v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1122, [2007] HLR 7 at [2] per Waller LJ.

120 Ibid, at [38].

121 Ibid, at [41].

122 Local Government Ombudsman, above n 104. See also eg LGO Decision 09 001 262.

123 P Niner Homelessness in Nine Local Authorities: Case Studies of Policy and Practice (HMSO, 1989) cited in Alden, above n 111.

124 Halliday, above n 112, at 456.

125 Nabi, above n 117, at 110.

126 B Rashleigh ‘Keeping the numbers down’ (2005) ROOF cited in Alden, above n 111.

127 Alden, above n 111.

128 National Audit Office Financial Sustainability of Local Authorities HC 834 Session 2017–19 8 March 2018.

129 Alden, above n 111, at 938.

130 Ibid, at 936.

131 Halliday, above n 110.

132 Hunter, C et al. ‘Legal compliance in street-level bureaucracy: a study of UK housing officers’ (2016) 38(1) Law & Policy 81CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 82.

133 Hotak, above n 31, at [45].

134 Ibid.

135 Cowan, D ‘The judicialisation of homelessness law: a study of regulation 8(2), Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999’ (2016) PL 235Google Scholar.

136 Hotak, above n 31, at [72].

137 Ibid, at [79].

138 Ibid, at [78]–[79].

139 Ibid, at [79].

140 Hackney London Borough Council v Haque [2017] EWCA Civ 4, [2017] HLR 14 at [8]–[9].

141 Luba HHJ QC.

142 Haque, above n 140, at [51].

143 Wendy Lomax v Gosport Borough Council [2018] EWCA Civ 1846 at [48]–[50].

144 The local authority must discharge its functions ‘having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children’: Children Act 1989, s 11(2).

145 Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2012, SI 2012/2601, art 2.

146 Nzolameso v Westminster City Council [2015] UKSC 22, [2015] HLR 22.

147 Ibid, at [36]–[37].

148 Ibid, at [35].

149 Ibid, at [21].

150 Ibid, at [35].

151 Konig v Federal Republic of Germany (1978) 2 EHRR 170; Bentham v The Netherlands (1985) 8 EHRR 1; Bryan v United Kingdom (1995) 21 EHRR 342; Albert v Belgium (1983) 5 EHRR 533.

152 Runa Begum, above n 4, at [6].

153 Ibid, at [4].

154 Ibid.

155 Ali v Birmingham City Council [2010] UKSC 8, [2010] HLR 22.

156 Salesi v Italy (1998) 26 EHRR 187.

157 Ali, above n 155, at [49].

158 Ibid, at [5].

159 cf Loveland, I ‘Does homelessness decision making engage Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights?’ (2003) EHRLR 176Google Scholar.

160 Ali, above n 73, at [59].

161 Poshteh v Kensington & Chelsea Royal London Borough Council [2017] UKSC 36, [2017] HLR 28.

162 Ibid, at [33].

163 Ali, above 73, at [77].

164 Ibid, at [85].

165 Ibid, at [85].

166 Ibid, at [79] and [82].

167 The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/223, regs 5(3) and 8(2)(b).

168 S Nield ‘Clash of the titans: Article 8, occupiers and their home’ in S Bright (ed) Modern Studies in Property Law Vol 6 (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2011).

169 Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 2 AC 10; Hounslow London Borough Council v Powell [2011] UKSC 8, [2011] 2 AC 186.

170 Thomas and Tomlinson, above n 65.

171 Ali, above n 155, at [4].

172 Thomas and Tomlinson, above n 65, at 542.

173 Ali, above n 155, at [4].

174 Immigration Act 2014, s 15 substituting Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, s 82.

175 Care Act 2014, s 72.

176 MoJ, above n 9, p 17.

177 The Special Educational Needs and Disability (First-tier Tribunal Recommendations Power) Regulations 2017, SI 2017/1306.

178 Which undertake a judicial function; Department for Education School Admission Appeals Code Statutory Guidance for School Leaders, Governing Bodies and Local Authorities (February 2012) section 1.2.

179 Ibid, section 3.

180 R (on the application of Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, [2012] 1 AC 663; Eba v Advocate General for Scotland [2011] UKSC 29, [2012] 1 AC 710.

181 Laurie, above n 44.

182 Elliott and Thomas, above n 45, at 314.

183 Cart, above n 180, at [30].

184 Ibid, at [42]–[43].

185 Ibid, at [130].

186 Ras Behari Lal v King-Emperor (1933) 60 IA 354 at 361 cited in R (on the application of C) v The Upper Tribunal [2010] EWCA Civ 859, [2011] 2 WLR 36 at [34] per Sedley LJ giving the judgment of the court.

187 Kagan, RA ‘The organisation of administrative justice systems: the role of political mistrust’ in Adler, M (ed) Administrative Justice in Context (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010) p 167Google Scholar.

188 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, s 1.

189 Ibid, s 3(5).

190 Ibid, s 2.

191 Public Health England Guidance Homelessness: Applying All Our Health 2 November 2018.

192 Office for National Statistics Deaths of Homeless People in England and Wales – Local Authority Estimates: 2013 to 2017 Statistical Bulletin, 25 February 2019, p 2.

193 Thomas, above n 103, p 26.

194 Ali, above n 155, at [5].