Van der Stolk v Camden LBC
Mr Van der Stolk applied as homeless following dismissal from work and the loss of tied accommodation. A decision of "homeless intentionally" was upheld.

Van der Stolk did not appeal to the county court within the 21-day limit. But about six weeks after the decision, he submitted a medical report which said it was very likely that mental health issues would have stopped him from being fully functional. He asked for a further review.

The council's legal department said the time limit had passed and there were no relevant exceptional reasons or circumstances to justify a further review.

But the judge allowed an application for judicial review. He said the medical report did add materially to the case and was relevant to whether conduct leading to Van der Stolk's dismissal had been "deliberate". He said the man's ill health should be considered in regard to his missing the appeal deadline.

Source

Housing Today

Reference

Homeless persons' unit managers will need to decide whether requests to re-open cases should be considered by the original caseworker, the review officer and/or the legal department. A council can do a "further" review for an applicant who misses the time limit but has new points.