"A person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason."
"The council must consider whether Mr Pereira is a person who is vulnerable as a result of mental illness or handicap or for other special reason. Thus, the council must ask itself whether Mr Pereira is, when homeless, less able to fend for himself than an ordinary homeless person so that injury or detriment to him will result when a less vulnerable man would be able to cope without harmful effects."
“Mr Hall is 39 years old. His history shows that he has had many problems in his life of a medical and social nature….He has also had a period in prison to which he reacted very badly, having at least one psychotic episode while in prison. The present proceedings arise because Mr Hall was a tenant of local authority accommodation together with his partner. When his partner left he ceased to be entitled to that accommodation. A possession action was issued and Mr Hall left those premises,… and in those circumstances the local authority readily accepted at the outset that he was homeless for the purposes of the Act.”
"The council is satisfied that you are not in priority need of housing. On available medical information it is considered that you are not so disadvantaged, either medically or socially, that you would be unable to secure or maintain your own accommodation in circumstances where a more vulnerable person would suffer harmful effects."
"Over the years he has presented with episodes of reactive depression that have been managed here at the GP's surgery without necessitating a referral to our over-stretched local community mental health team. He is able to live independently. My only concern is that any bed and breakfast placement be close enough within Lambeth so that he can continue to access GP services at this practice."
“Does the applicant’s medical condition restrict/impede him from seeking or maintaining his/her own accommodation?”
“Any mental illness not considered significant or severe. No housing recommendation.”
“… confirms that Mr Hall has a history of serious mental illness and that if his depression becomes worse he may require sectioning and that he would suffer detriment.”
“If possible, please confirm whether you consider Mr Hall is likely to suffer injury or detriment if homeless due to his physical or mental health difficulties. I am aware that you previously advised Wandsworth of his suffering from reactive depression but you must expand upon what the symptoms are as requested above. Please comment on what the injury or detriment would be and whether you consider a less vulnerable person would be able to cope without harmful effects.”
“1999 reactive psychosis, whilst in custody, those records with prison medical service.”
“reactive depression, heavy drinking again. Again declined formal help for low mood as felt it was caused by current circumstances.”
“Clearly Mr Hall has a history of serious mental illness and my concern is that if his depression worsens he may develop another episode of acute psychosis. He does not have a good track record of accepting help for his mental health, and so it is likely that he may require sectioning at some stage. He is also at risk of developing further alcohol dependence, therefore in such circumstances he would not be able to fend for himself and would certainly suffer detriment.”
“Please consider medical report, particularly comment of serious mental health illness, and recommend if able to fend for himself.”
“His previous mental illness is noted which led to breakdown in 1985 and 1999. However of late his depression is considered of much less severity and he has declined any treatment. It is no longer considered psychotic in nature, nor such as to impede normal activity and function. His non-insulin diabetes is controlled on minimum treatment only and turns out no secondary medical complications. No housing recommendations. There is nothing to materially hinder his ability to cope as a homeless person.”
“I am satisfied to uphold the earlier decision. This is because I agree that you do not, on present information and at this time, have a priority need for accommodation as a vulnerable person within the meaning of the legislation.”
"In the council's opinion you are capable of independent living, managing your own accommodation and hygiene as well as living and coping independently."
“I am satisfied that your history of mental health problems, and non-insulin dependent diabetes are not so serious as to render you vulnerable on the basis of physical or mental disability. Whilst I acknowledge that you may have some medical problems I am not satisfied that this is sufficiently serious as to render you at risk of injury or detriment when homeless.”
“In her past medical history she has petit mal epilepsy controlled on Epilim. She is also on HRT. I feel that Mrs Carter’s present accommodation is actually making her ill and I am fairly sure that she is going to become clinically depressed should she continue at the Elena Hotel.”
“The petit mal-type epilepsy is noted but is not significant and is unrelated to housing. No other significant medical issues. No housing recommendations.”
“As to your medical problems, taking into account the medical information available to me, and this having been assessed by the Council’s Independent Medical Adviser, I am not persuaded that you, when homeless, are any less able to fend for yourself than the ordinary homeless person. I am satisfied that it cannot be so serious as to expose to any greater risk of injury or detriment than the ordinary homeless person.”
“Subsequent visits to this practice showed that she was clinically very depressed and agitated, for which I started her on Prozac and Valium. Mrs Carter’s medications include Amitriptyline 25mgs one to two at night, Epilim 400 mgs in the morning and 200 mgs at night, Priman, a form of HRT, Co-dydramol, a form of analgesic painkiller, Fibrogel, and Prozac. From all the aforementioned it is undoubtedly clear that Mrs Carter is a very vulnerable person and evicting her from her current accommodation would only worsen her clinical state of mind and body. The Council could actually do well in helping to improve her housing condition, i.e. by providing her with better accommodation, which would be stress free or near stress free for the patient.”
“treated at low level throughout with single minor anti-depressant drugs (prozac or dothiepin), has not necessitated psychiatric referral and is not considered significant or severe”
“There is nothing to impede reasonable functions nor any risk of harm from homelessness and I continue to make no housing recommendations.”
“You completed a medical assessment form on 20/2/03, the contents of which along with the letters from your GP (Dr Jeffcote), Dr Bolade and St. George’s Hospital were referred to an independent Medical Adviser for a recommendation. These letters confirm that you suffered facial abscesses, epilepsy, and chest pains (undiagnosed) a minor stroke and are currently investigation for stomach problems by St. George’s hospital. Your representatives claim you were never questioned about your mental health conditions, however as neither you nor you GP made any reference to any severe or significant mental health problems I can find no irrationality in the decision by your caseworker not to make specific enquiries to this effect. I have however considered the fact that you were treated with a low dose of Dothiepin (sedative). I also note that though Dr Jeffcote was considering prescribing anti-depressants in May 2003, Dr Bolade does (not)* confirm that such medication has been prescribed in his letter of 2/9/03. I note that you have not been referred to the Community Mental Health team, as you do not seem to suffer from any mental health problems of a psychotic nature. It would seem your gynaecological surgery was conducted in 1998 and though you received treatment for your facial abscesses in June 2003, you do not suffer from an illness such as to impede reasonable mobility or function. There is also no further information to suggest deterioration in your petit Mal-epilepsy and the condition continues to be controlled by medication, which does not suggest any severity. You would also seem to be quite mobile as noted by officers of this Council during interview sessions. In Dr Bolade’s letter he states ‘it is undoubtedly clear that Ms. Carter is a very vulnerable person’. Your representatives further confirm that you are in receipt of Incapacity benefit. Vulnerability for the purpose of this application is a matter of law and governed by the test case mentioned above. It is not a matter of your GP’s opinion or based on the assessments made by the Social Security Service. However due regard has been given to this opinion in consideration of your ability to fend for yourself.” [* In his County Court statement, Mr Adelaja said that the word “not” should have been omitted – see below.] He considered the claim that her solicitors had not been able to respond to the Council’s findings on the health problems, but noted that they had had “full sight of the entire housing file” and were therefore fully aware of the findings”
“The letter from Dr Bolade… is fully comprehensive and provides a good profile of your medical history and functional abilities, without further enquiries being made. All information available to me would suggest that you are capable of independent living, managing your own accommodation and hygiene as well as living and coping independently. I also note that you have coped very well in managing your own affairs and are in receipt of Incapacity Benefit. I am satisfied that you do not suffer from any illness that could render you vulnerable on the basis of mental or physical disability.”
“Although… the reviewer is not independent of the authority which employs him or her, section 203 of the 1996Act and the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 (S1 1999/71) do provide safeguards that the review will be fairly conducted. Thus the reviewer must be senior to the original decision-maker (section 203(2)(a), regulation 2), plainly to avoid the risk that a subordinate may feel under pressure to rubber-stamp the decision of a superior. The reviewer must not have been involved in making the original decision (section 203(2)(a), regulation 2), to try to ensure that the problem is addressed with a genuinely open mind. The applicant has a right to make representations, and must be told of that right (regulation 6(2)). Such representations must be considered (regulation 8(1)). The applicant is entitled to be represented (regulation 6(2)). If the reviewer finds a deficiency or irregularity in the original decision, or in the manner in which it was made, but is nonetheless inclined to make a decision adverse to the applicant, the applicant must be informed and given an opportunity to make representations (regulation 8(2)). The reviewer must give reasons for a decision adverse to the applicant (section 203(4)). The applicant must be told of his right to appeal to the county court on a point of law (section 203(5)). These rules do not establish the reviewer as an independent and impartial tribunal, but they preclude unreasoned decision-making by an unknown and unaccountable bureaucrat whom the applicant never has a chance to seek to influence, and any significant departure from these procedural rules prejudicial to the applicant would afford a ground of appeal. ”
“(2) If the reviewer considers that there is deficiency or irregularity in the original decision or in the manner in which it was made but is minded nevertheless to make a decision which is against the interests of the applicant on one or more issues the reviewer shall notify the applicant: (a) that the reviewer is so minded, and the reasons why; and (b) that the applicant, or someone acting on his behalf, may make representations to the reviewer orally or in writing or both orally and in writing.”
“This was not a situation calling for elaborate reasons… The medical evidence at this stage, consisting in substance of the applicant’s own GP’s report, was in reality all one way. It is difficult to see how the council could have come to any other decision other than the one it reached…”
“… merely referring the medical evidence supplied by the Appellant to an adviser with no psychiatric training, who carried out no further enquiries, did not even obtain the Appellant’s medical records from the Prison Medical Service, did not see the Appellant, and then gave his own opinion on the Appellant’s state of mental health cannot amount to the carrying out of proper enquiries.”
“I confirm that when making my decision I considered the assertions that the Claimant was clinically depressed and that her health could deteriorate. However I held these elements not to be sufficient to render the Claimant vulnerable.”
“In my judgment this proposition of failure to consider these observations by Dr Bolade is largely undermined by the witness statements of Mr Adelaja, particularly when taken in conjunction with the review decision. It is clear that Mr Adelaja did take account of Dr Bolade’s opinion, but of course he also had the advantage of reports from Dr Keen, which did not support Dr Bolade’s opinion. I am satisfied that Mr Adelaja did apply the Pereira test, did take account of the letter of Dr Bolade, and cannot be said to have misdirected himself here.”
“…though Dr Jeffcote was considering prescribing anti-depressants, Dr Bolade does not confirm that such medication has been prescribed…”
“…though Dr Jeffcote was considering prescribing anti-depressants, Dr Bolade does… confirm that such medication has been prescribed.”
“… the decision-maker… failed to give any reasons whatsoever for his decision that the Appellant was not vulnerable due to her medical reasons. In particular, he did not explain why he had decided that the Appellant did not have a priority need; rather, having set out the statutory provision (as construed in Pereira), he drew an unreasoned conclusion. This was a deficiency or irregularity because it was unlawful for lack of reasons.”
“Your representatives claim you were never questioned about your mental health conditions, however as neither you nor your GP made any reference to any severe or significant mental health problems I can find no irrationality in the decision by your caseworker not to make specific enquiries to this effect. ”