R (Ibrahim) v Westminster CC
1st October 2021
Ms Ibrahim was found to be intentionally homeless when she applied to Westminster City Council. She requested a review, and the reviewing officer upheld the intentionally homeless decision. Ms Ibrahim had submitted a medical report for the reviewing officer's consideration. However, an administrative slip up meant that the reviewing officer didn't see this report and did not take it into account..
Ms Ibrahim was unable to appeal, because she had run out of time to be allowed to do so. As an alternative, she submitted a fresh homeless application. This time the medical report was part of her application. Westminster CC refused to accept the application, saying that it was based on the same facts that had existed when the first application was made.
Ms Ibrahim was permitted to request a judicial review of Westminster's decision not to accept the second application. The judge found that any new fact, circumstance or event triggering a new application does not need to have occurred after the first decision was made. New facts that come to light but which relate to the period before the first decision would also count as new facts.
Westminster were acting unreasonably by not accepting the new application.
View full transcript of the case
View full case references
 EWHC 2616 (Admin)