If you would check with us in the future that would be better
You don’t happen to live in eastgrinstead do you?

The comment on my post about Now Medical was posted suspiciously close to this one

So, just for clarity, you are saying that your experience is that Now Medical says vulnerable on 33% of the referrals that you have made to them on homeless applications on vulnerability issues - yes? or indeed no?

PS - ‘been away’? Hmm.

The higher courts have already considered reviews in the context of Tsfayo - albeit in the context of a review of possession proceedings against a demoted tenancy. Gilboy (R) v Liverpool. My comment is here - http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2007/10/demoted-tenancies-and-human-rights/

Application to s.202 reviews could be interesting, for although arguably reviews of reasonableness of decision, rather than finding of fact (the Gilboy issue), there would be a stronger argument that the review was decisive of civil rights and obligations. Hmmmm.

Nearly, in the main you’re right – Dr Keen routinely emphasises the least favourable interpretation possible of the applicant’s condition possible on the presenting facts. That is why homelessness departments keep going back to him. Now Medical is useful to decision-makers. Its not exactly rocket science. I’m just reporting my experience and what I’ve witnessed first hand. I’m not surprised solicitors are sceptical about Now Medical, particularly when the recurring pattern is surely apparent to any experienced adviser in a way that is unlikely to be apparent to a district judge.

Sure Dr Keen sometimes advises against an adverse decision….in a fashion. Having reflected on this point, what I find telling is that in such cases Dr Keen shall often state a case is at the borders of reasonableness rather than by making a unequivocal recommendation that would lead to the acceptance of a duty or overturning of a discharge - even when the facts he draw upon to make such a conclusion point to a positive determination, rather than a borderline judgment call. Perhaps it wouldn’t be good for business to upset your customers too much.

While I would say that Dr Keen does make positive recommendations, to say “he says yes to loads of cases” is in my experience a gross exaggeration.

And no you’re not being cynical in assuming that Dr Keen took on a psychiatrist after Shala. It was rather shortly after the judgment if I remember correctly. Again, good business sense…

But as has already been touched upon in the above discussion the whole Now Medical issue is problematic because of wider issues that are in themselves contradictory, not least the extent to which homeless officers and senior officers conducting reviews can truly be impartial, coupled with the limited ability of the courts to interfere on issues of fact. I’m not making a judgment call here (there are after all strong arguments for adhering to the classic JR grounds). I’m just suggesting that its hardly surprising we’ve got a company like Now Medical that does what it does. It will be interesting to see how the higher courts approach Part VII reviews in light of Tsfayo.

The wider context is of course the wide disparity between the apparent aims of Part VII (a safety net to certain categories of homeless persons which assumes housing can be secured for all qualifying persons) and the wholly inadequate numbers of vacancies available to LA’s to discharge their duties, consequently the inherent motive to gatekeep. And as Ben quite rightly points out, central government policy is to a large extent responsible for the difficult position experienced by local housing authorities.