Case No. EWHC-185-(Admin)

79.In so far as I need to make findings of fact I find on the balance of probabilities that:79.1The Claimant had a long running application for a permanent change of housing based on his medical conditions. In that application he had asserted that he needed 24 hour care and a two bedroom flat. The Defendants had medically assessed the Claimant in mid 2020 and had refused 24 hour care. The Defendants had accepted that the Claimant used a wheelchair and needed day care but had found on medical evidence that he could walk and would improve with physiotherapy. The Defendants considered that the Claimant needed a one bedroom property. Thus the parties had an issue over the extent of the Claimant’s disabilities and his prognosis and his accommodation needs. 79.2The Claimant had a partial history of avoiding allowing the Defendants access to his GP records. He had never provided GP reports or consultants’ reports on his asserted medical conditions on the evidence before me. However the Defendants had obtained at least some of his medical records and these did not support the Claimant’s assertions. The Defendants had obtained enough in their past records to know that the Claimant was a wheelchair user due to a medical condition of some sort. What was in dispute was whether the Claimant could walk short distances (for instance between his studio room and his bathroom and use stairs). The Defendants considered he could walk and would improve with physiotherapy. On the issue of whether he was completely wheelchair-bound and unable to weight bare and needed 24 hour care including night care, the Defendants did not accept the Claimant’s assertions.79.3The Claimant had in the past alleged he could not speak English and later had been the translator into English for his family.79.4For a period of time the Claimant had been receiving State funding for 35 hours per week of care provided by carers. 79.5The Claimant chose and moved into his flat in Park West in 2018 and this was paid by Housing Benefit. He was a wheelchair user at that time. He had lived there for 4 years. 79.6On 10 August 2022 the Claimant made his urgent homelessness housing application on legal advice and with representation based on his previously asserted disabilities and provided no medical evidence of any diagnosis or prognosis in support of the application. 79.7After a meeting or interview on 12th August 2022 and being asked to provide medical evidence in that meeting he was also emailed for that information and sent forms to complete the same day. He delayed responding long past the 5 day time limit requested and when he did respond he failed to provide any GP letters; notes or records; hospital discharge summaries; consultants notes or letters all of which he had a right to access under the Data Protection Act 2018. The Claimant also specifically failed to give the names and contact details of his GP, pain management consultant, neurologist, physiotherapist, consultant orthopaedic surgeon (spinal) or his NHS number despite being asked to do so by the Defendants via the forms in the emails on 12.8.2022 and letters dated 15.8.22 and others.79.8The Claimant chose, despite legal advice and the clear past issues with the Defendants relating to his medical conditions, to provide no medical evidence to the Defendants of his medical conditions. The only documents evidencing his asserted symptoms which were disclosed in the judicial review claim were four reports from OTs, who are not doctors or medically qualified to diagnose medical conditions.79.9The Claimant ignored multiple requests for medical information and access to his GP and treating medical consultants until January 2023 when his GP’s name and address (in Shepherd’s Bush) was provided. I am not aware whether any consultants’ details have ever been provided to the Defendants.79.10The Defendants informed the Claimant that they had made a decision in relation to “accepting” the Claimant’s application for interim relief under S.188(1) on 26.9.2022.79.11On 26.9.2022 the Defendants offered to the Claimant interim temporary accommodation in the form of studio or one bed accommodation and the Claimant refused such stating that he would prefer to stay where he was and await long term council accommodation (he clearly wanted a two bed council tenancy to accommodate his night carer). 79.12Thereafter the Defendants considered that the Claimant had chosen to be and was homeless at home for the short term and that they had discharged their duty under S.188(1). 79.13In the judicial review claim and the urgent relief application the Claimant chose not to provide the Court with any medical evidence or medical notes from any doctors relating to his medical conditions.