{"id":13620,"date":"2015-09-11T15:30:39","date_gmt":"2015-09-11T15:30:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.propertysurveying.co.uk\/newsletter\/?page_id=13620"},"modified":"2015-09-15T09:38:18","modified_gmt":"2015-09-15T09:38:18","slug":"iranian-torture-victim-refuses-final-accommodation-offer-appeal-process-culminates-in-defeat","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.propertysurveying.co.uk\/newsletter\/?page_id=13620","title":{"rendered":"Iranian torture victim refuses final accommodation offer \u00e2\u20ac\u201c appeal process culminates in defeat"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ref. <\/strong>Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea<\/em> [2015] EWCA Civ 711<\/p>\n

Following two periods of imprisonment and torture in Iran on charges of dissident activity, Ms Poshteh was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK in 2009. Kensington and Chelsea Council sourced temporary accommodation for her in accordance with their homelessness duty and sought more permanent living arrangements for her.<\/p>\n

As per s. 193(7) of the Housing Act 1996 as amended, the Council\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s duty to a person categorised as \u00e2\u20ac\u02dchomeless\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 ceases if that person refuses a final offer of accommodation \u00e2\u20ac\u0153having been <\/em>informed of the possible consequence of refusal and of his right to request a review of the suitability of the accommodation\u00e2\u20ac\u009d.<\/em><\/p>\n

In this instance, on viewing the property, Ms Poshteh was reputedly reminded of the prison where she had been detained, which caused a panic attack. Her principal concern arose from a round window in the living room, which reminded her of the prison windows, and she refused the offer of accommodation as a result.<\/p>\n

A review of the decision to end the Council\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s duty to her followed. The reviewing officer considered the following in rejecting her concerns:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Ms Poshteh had indicated that the flat would be suitable as temporary accommodation;<\/li>\n
  2. The round window was significantly larger than those present in the prison;<\/li>\n
  3. There was an additional large square window in the living room; and<\/li>\n
  4. The medical evidence indicated that a small dark flat, a flat without a view, or one with a lift would be unsuitable for Ms Poshteh.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    An appeal to the County Court failed and the matter was escalated to the Court of Appeal. Two grounds were considered and rejected:<\/p>\n