Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
[2017] UKSC 36
Independent editorial summary — not the official judgment. Read the full judgment via the source link.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court refused to depart from Ali v Birmingham City Council, which held that duties to the homeless under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 do not give rise to “civil rights” engaging Article 6, notwithstanding the ECtHR Chamber's contrary decision in Ali v United Kingdom; the domestic position stands at least until the issue is fully considered by a Grand Chamber. Review decisions by housing officers are to be read benevolently as a whole, not subjected to over-zealous linguistic analysis.
Facts
Ms Poshteh, who had come to the UK as a refugee from Iran where she had been imprisoned and tortured, refused a “final offer” of permanent accommodation in November 2012 on the ground that features of the flat, in particular a round living-room window, reminded her of her prison cell and would worsen her post-traumatic stress disorder. On review, the council held those grounds insufficient to justify her refusal, so that its housing duty ceased under s.193(7) of the Housing Act 1996. The county court and a majority of the Court of Appeal (Elias LJ dissenting) upheld the council's decision.
Judgment Summary
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed her appeal, with Lord Carnwath giving the only judgment. On the first issue it declined to depart from Ali v Birmingham City Council, holding that the ECtHR Chamber decision in Ali v United Kingdom was not a sufficient reason to abandon the court's fully considered conclusion that Part VII homelessness duties do not engage Article 6, and that a Grand Chamber ruling should be awaited. On the second issue, applying Lord Neuberger's benevolent approach to review decisions in Holmes-Moorhouse, it held that the reviewing officer had asked the right question about her ability to live in the flat and his decision disclosed no error of law; the decision of the reviewing officer was confirmed.
Key Quotes
"The scope and limits of the concept of a “civil right”, as applied to entitlements in the field of public welfare, raise important issues as to the interpretation of article 6, on which the views of the Chamber are unlikely to be the last word."
— Lord Carnwath at [37](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
"It is appropriate that we should await a full consideration by a Grand Chamber before considering whether (and if so how) to modify our own position."
— Lord Carnwath at [37](verbatim, verified against the judgment)
Subsequent Treatment
Confirms that Ali v Birmingham City Council remains binding domestically on Article 6 and homelessness reviews unless and until reconsidered following a Grand Chamber decision.
What To Do Next
Get Professional Help