De Souza v Figueiredo

1. Thank you both of you. What I am concerned with today is a situation which I accept is a matter of urgency.

2. The father has been squarely on notice of the urgency of the mother’s housing situation for some significant period of time.

3. She was evicted from her original home with the child and has been able to secure the kindness of a friend who has allowed her to stay at the friend’s property, pending the friend obtaining some form of planning permission to do works on the property, but that situation is to end as at 17 June.

4. Beyond that, she has had an offer from a friend for them to be able to stay in the friend’s house while the friend is away, but that only runs for a period of six weeks.

5. The mother is in receipt of universal credit. It is, of course, a means tested award, and despite the father’s, unrealistic protestation that the mother, in fact, has plenty of money to be able to afford to house herself and the child, all of the evidence currently before the court strongly suggests that that is not the case at all.

6. In circumstances where the court is asked to deal with an application to make an order on an interim basis, in a situation which is clearly urgent, such as this matter which will not come back before the court before the mother and the child are rendered homeless, then the court not only can but clearly should ensure that the child’s housing needs are going to be met in the time between now and the final hearing or resolution of the matter.

7. The suggestion that this is some sort of orchestrated ambush on the part of the mother is fanciful as is much of that which has been postulated by the father..

8. It is, of course, disappointing that the court finds itself in a situation that it is having to step in on an emergency basis, to ensure that the father’s own child will be properly housed, and that the father has refused to offer any realistic provision to ensure that that happens.

9. The father having been given the opportunity to make such offer, and such having been refused, the court has no alternative but to deal with this matter, and to ensure that the child’s housing needs are met in the interim.

10. The court is informed that the mother has found a landlord who would be prepared to rent to her, at a sum of £3,000 per month, but she has to pay six months of that rent in advance. That is the sum of £21,000.

11. Despite the father earning in excess of £250,000 per annum, he contends that he does not have any monies available to him to enable him to make a lump sum payment. That, I find to be a highly unlikely situation.

12. In any event, given the level of his income, it is clearly open to him to borrow what, for him, would be a relatively small sum of money, of £21,000, if he genuinely does not have it available to him.

13. The father contends that absent evidence of his finances the court cannot make an order.

14. Given all of the circumstances of this case, the urgency of the situation, and the fact that this court must be concerned to ensure that the child is able to be housed appropriately, then the court can and will make an order today, requiring the father to pay to the mother a lump sum of £21,000, as an interim order, and the court will order that to be paid within 21 days of today.

15. Having dealt with that, I will now deal with the issue of directions going forward. --------------- The father sought permission to appeal this decision. Permission to appeal was refused by HHJ Hess.