Agenda and minutes

(Head of Research and Democratic Services) To report the attendance of any substitute members for the meeting.

It was noted that there were no substitute members present at the meeting.

To declare interests in any item on the agenda.

No declarations of interest were made pursuant to Part 2 of the Council’s Code of Member Conduct.

            To consider whether, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press should be excluded from the meeting for the items of business set out below on grounds that they will involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraph(s) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act indicated.

            Agenda                   Exempt information

            Item No.            Subject            Paragraph Number

          5            Appeal No. 22/2005             3

          6            Appeal No. 21/2005             3

To resolve that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items which are confidential under Section 100(A)(2) of the Local Government Act 1972.

            Item No.            Subject

            Nil            Nil

            RESOLVED:

            That, in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the items of business set out below as they would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the Paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12(A) of the Act indicated:

            Agenda Item No.            Subject            Exempt Information

                                    Paragraph Number

                        5            Appeal No 22/2005            3

                        6            Appeal No 21/2005            3

                        7            Appeal No 19/2005            3

                        8            Appeal No 20/2005            3

To consider a restricted report.

The Panel was advised that the appellant had indicated that she wished to attend the meeting in order to present her case but that she was not present.

The Panel agreed to adjourn the meeting to enable the officers to attempt to contact the appellant.

After the adjournment, the Panel was advised that the appellant had been contacted on her mobile phone and had advised that she was in hospital having given birth.  She had confirmed that she still wished to appear before the Panel and had asked for consideration of her appeal to be deferred.

            RESOLVED:

            (1)            That consideration of Appeal No 22/2005 be deferred until 4 pm on 13 December 2005; and

            (2)            That the handwritten details of the appeal included on the appellant’s application to the Panel be typed and circulated to members prior to the meeting on 13 December 2005.

To consider a restricted report.

The Panel gave consideration to an appeal against a decision of the Assistant Housing Needs Manager (Homelessness) acting under delegated authority regarding a homeless application.  The appellant was not in attendance at the meeting and had elected for the appeal to be determined on the basis of written representations.

The Head of Housing Services confirmed to the Panel that he had not previously been involved in this case and would be able to advise members on housing policy and legislation relevant to the appeal.  He confirmed that, in addition to the submitted written statements, the relevant housing file was available if required by the Panel.  He emphasised that the decision of the Panel had to be based on the representations before it.

The Panel had before them the following documents which were taken into consideration:

(a)        a summary of the appeal together with the facts of the case forming part of the agenda for the meeting;

(b)        a copy of the appellant’s licence to occupy a room at the Council’s homeless hostel;

(c)        a copy of a letter dated 14 July 2005 from the Hostel Management Team to the appellant;

(d)        a copy of a letter dated 29 September 2005 from the Assistant Housing Needs Manager (Homelessness) to the appellant;

(e)        a report of the Hostel Management Team dated 3 November 2005;

(f)         a copy of a report of an interview between a Housing Officer and the appellant dated 6 October 2005;

(g)        a copy of a letter dated 10 October 2005 from the Assistant Housing Needs Manager (Homelessness) to the appellant;

(h)        a copy of the application to the Housing Appeals Panel by the appellant dated 24 October 2005;

(i)         a copy of a letter dated 24 November 2005 from the Epping Citizens Advice Bureau to the Council’s Democratic Services Manager together with submissions made on behalf of the appellant;

(j)         a copy of a letter dated 23 November 2005 from the North Essex Mental Health Partnership to the Council’s Housing Department; and

(k)        a copy of an undated letter from the North Essex Mental Health Partnership to the Epping Citizens Advice Bureau.

The Panel considered the following submissions in support of the appellant’s case:

(a)        the appellant was seeking a review of the Council’s decision of 10 October 2005 that he was homeless intentionally;

(b)        the appellant had applied to the Council as homeless in January 2005 after being asked to leave a residential drug rehabilitation project; the Council had provided him with interim accommodation;

(c)        the appellant had been accepted as a vulnerable person and the Council had accepted a full duty to house him on 21 March 2005; the appellant had been provided with temporary accommodation at the Council’s homeless hostel;

(d)        on 14 July 2005, following an incident on 11 July 2005, the appellant had been given a final written warning concerning his licence at the homeless hostel; on 29 September 2005 there had been a further incident involving the appellant during which the police  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

The Panel was advised that consideration of this appeal had been deferred at the meeting held on 24 November 2005 pending the receipt of additional information.

The Panel received and took into consideration:

(a)        a letter dated November 2005 from the appellant explaining to the Employment Tribunal Service why he had not appealed against his dismissal;

(b)        a copy of the full letter dated 14 July 2005 from the appellant’s former employer; and

(c)        a copy of a record of a meeting held on 4 July 2005 between the management and employees, including the appellant, of the appellant’s former employers.

The Panel noted that the letter confirming the appellant’s dismissal for gross misconduct referred to a complaint from a member of the public about the driving of one of the appellant’s former employer’s vehicles on the Dartford Bridge.  The letter did not state that this had been the appellant.  Similarly, the reference to a complaint about an employee leaving a job early did not state that the complaint related to the appellant.  In relation to the appellant’s time-keeping for the week ending 8 July 2005, different versions had been provided by the appellant’s former employer and the appellant.  The appellant’s former employer had referred to a disciplinary hearing on 12 July 2005, but it appeared that the Pay Section of the appellant’s former employer had not received on 20 July 2005, details of the hours that the appellant had worked during the weekending 8 July 2005.  In relation to the alleged loss of an item of equipment, the Panel noted the appellant’s explanations.

The Panel concluded that based on the evidence before it, the actions of the appellant should not have justified his dismissal and as a result he should not have lost his tied accommodation.

The Panel noted that the appellant had not taken tribunal action against his former employers as the Department of Trade and Industry had advised him this was not possible as he had not been employed by the company for more than 12 months.

            RESOLVED:

            (1)            That, having regard to the provisions of the Housing Act 1996, as amended, and the Homelessness Code of Guidance and, having taken into consideration the information presented by the appellant and the Assistant Housing Needs Manager (Homelessness) in writing, the appeal be allowed and the decision of the Assistant Housing Needs Manager (Homelessness) be not upheld for the following reasons:

            (a)            based on the information presented to the Panel, it is considered that the actions of the appellant should not have led to dismissal from his employment, and that it was reasonable for the appellant to believe that his actions would not have resulted in dismissal;

            (b)            in relation to the appellant’s time-keeping, it is noted that the investigation into the complaint from a member of the public about the driving of a company vehicle on the Dartford Bridge does not identify the appellant as the driver of that vehicle; similarly, the reference to an employee leaving a job  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

The Panel was reminded of the decision which it had taken in relation to this appeal at its meeting on 24 November 2005.

The Panel was informed that, following the meeting on 24 November 2005, officers had raised concern about some of the advice given to members at the meeting and as a result, Counsel’s views had been sought.  Counsel had drawn attention to the fact that the appellant had been in interim accommodation, not temporary accommodation, and it had been wrong in law, therefore, to say that the Council had discharged its duty.  In the light of this advice, the Panel was invited to review its previous decision.

            RESOLVED:

            (1)            That Resolution (2) of the decision reached on 24 November 2005 be revoked;

            (2)            That the appellant be offered temporary accommodation by the Council in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Act 1996, for occupation pending the offer of permanent accommodation; and

            (3)            That, having regard to the appellant’s history of anti social behaviour, she be advised that any such behaviour in the temporary accommodation provided would be likely to result in eviction from that accommodation.

CHAIRMAN