Short v Birmingham CC
The council decided that Mrs Short had become homeless intentionally. She asked for a review but on 4 March 2003 the council confirmed its decision.
She then had 21 days to appeal to the county court but her appeal wasn’t presented until 20 June 2003. She asked the court for permission to bring a late appeal (permission may be given only if the court is satisfied there is “good reason” for the delay).
Short said she had emotional strain at the time of the decision and had been trying to reconcile with her husband. She said all the solicitors she approached were unable to offer an appointment with a specialist in housing law for four or five weeks and that she had then had to leave the city to attend a family funeral.
She asked the court to take account of the “merits” of her case and the hardship she would suffer if an appeal were not allowed. But the local judge was not satisfied that the whole delay was explained by “good reasons” and refused to allow the late appeal.
Short appealed to the High Court. The judge dismissed her appeal. He said a late appeal could be allowed “only” if good reasons were established.
That word imposed a threshold and related to the reasons for the delay and not the merits of the case. Even a very strong case could only be allowed to go ahead out of time if good reasons had been established for delay.
Source
Housing Today
Reference
Until 2002, the 21-day time limit had been absolute. This is the first decision from an appeal court on the court’s new power to extend time and illustrates the difficulties that the homeless face in accessing the services of housing lawyers, even in metropolitan areas.
No comments yet