![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Asylum and Immigration Tribunal >> S v Entry Clearance Officer, Islamabad (Pakistan) [2004] UKIAT 00006 (19 January 2004) URL: https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIAT/2004/00006.html Cite as: [2004] UKIAT 00006, [2004] UKIAT 6 |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
APPEAL No. [2004] UKIAT 00006 S (Pakistan)
Date of hearing: 19 January 2004
Date Determination notified: 27 January 2004
APPELLANT | |
and |
|
Entry Clearance Officer, ISLAMABAD | RESPONDENT |
For the appellant: Mr R Sheikh, RS Advisory Service
This is an appeal from a decision of an adjudicator, Mrs N J Gladstone, sitting at Birmingham on 28 April 2003, in which she dismissed an appeal against refusal of a husband visa on the basis that the accommodation requirement was not met.
In relation to accommodation, the documentary evidence submitted confirms ownership and mortgage payments. I am aware an expert's report is not required to confirm adequacy of accommodation. As set in Rehman, the adequacy must be assessed in the light of the facts of each individual case. The report from the surveyors is dated 23 April 2002. The children's ages in that are given as 9, 4½, 2½ and 10 months. These do not accord with the ages over a year on given by the sponsor.
We pause at that point to note that the adjudicator should have dealt with the situation as it was at the date of the decision.
However, I reiterate that regardless of the requirements of the report, there is no evidence in relation to the number of units for the property. In practical terms two adult couples, a ten year old boy and three other children will be sharing a three-bedroomed property. I do not consider that the through-lounge is adequate in relation to sleeping accommodation as it is not self-contained. It has an open tread staircase leading to the first floor. It seems also that there is no hallway, so access to the kitchen and bathroom on the ground floor are through that room. On balance I am not satisfied that there will be adequate accommodation at 62 Chapel Street for the appellant and his sponsor in accordance with the Rules.
Having regard to the Section of the Housing Act 1985 I consider the accommodation as at the date of inspection to be adequate for the occupant as stated together with the applicant although congested.
The surveyor gives no reference to the section of the Housing Act to which he refers; nor details of any calculations. This falls well below the standards to be expected of any professional expert witness. We have had to do those calculations ourselves, in collaboration with Mr Sheikh and Mr Davidson.
John Freeman
(chairman)