A HOMELESS failed-asylum seeker has lost his court battle with the council for interim accommodation.

The visually-impaired man, who spent most nights at Brighton Station, asked the council for interim accommodation under the “everyone-in” Covid policy.

Brighton and Hove City Council had previously pledged that "Covid emergency accommodation is available for everyone who needs it".

The council refused the request as he was in the UK “unlawfully” and had not gone through a statutory scheme for failed asylum seekers by filling in a 32-page form.

A judge sided with the council after the case was taken to the high-court. The Argus asked the council how much this cost the taxpayer, but we did not receive an answer.

A full hearing was heard last year, however no decision has yet been made.

The ruling Green administration say the case highlights their “impossible position” as councils are bound by government legislation.

The Argus:

However councillor Mary Mears, homeless spokeswoman for the Conservative opposition, said: “The Greens came in and made a big announcement that Brighton and Hove would be a City of Sanctuary. They are not living up to their pledge.

“It should be noted that instead of arguing in the High Court for this individual as a city of sanctuary, they took the opposite approach and argued why he should not be housed.

“They can’t have it both ways. It is another example of the Greens lazily employing a blame game instead of taking responsibility for their own administration and actions.

“We would like to know which councillor was briefed by the officers when this decision was taken not to house.”

The diabetic claimant, who was not named, is said to have arrived in the UK in 2005 and applied for asylum the following year.

Between 2005 and 2020, the claimant stayed with a variety of friends and family members, but was made street homeless in September - meaning he was sleeping on the streets.

The claimant pleaded for interim accommodation under the “everyone-in” policy, which aimed to limit the spread of coronavirus within vulnerable groups by identifying, treating and housing people on the streets.

The council - represented by lawyer Jon Holbrook - argued the policy was “irrelevant” as government ministers have “made it clear that the money provided under this initiative is not to be used to circumvent immigration control”.

Meanwhile the council has said Mr Holbrook’s services “will not be used again” after he was later found to have tweeted that the Equality Act “empowered the stroppy teenager of colour”.

Speaking of the High Court case, Green councillor Siriol Hugh-Jones, joint chairwoman of the housing committee, said: “This case highlights the impossible position of councils that want to make sure no one is forced to sleep rough, irrespective of their countries of origin and asylum status.

“The government has made clear that councils must still abide by legislation which only allows accommodation to be offered to failed asylum seekers under very limited conditions, conditions which this person did not meet.

“The council argued that the responsibility for his accommodation lay with the Home Office and at the time of the legal challenge, the individual had not yet made his application. Since then the Home Office has provided accommodation to him where he remains.

“The current legislative framework for failed asylum seekers constrains what councils can do, and we implore the government to suspend those restrictions at a time of a global crisis, and offer proper funding to enable councils to protect everyone regardless of their status.

“This would allow the council to gain and maintain the trust of the rough sleepers we work with, some of whom are extremely vulnerable and traumatised. Trust is vital in order for people to feel able to tell us about issues like exploitation, modern slavery, abuse and other vulnerable people at risk.”