The claimant wished to be rehoused by the defendant authority. He complained that their allocations policy was unlawful. Once an applicant was deemed in priority need, he entered a pool if such persons and houses were allocated (save in extreme cases) to the persons longest on that list. He said that the policy should have taken account of his personal circumstances.
Held: Policies which were otherwise lawful should only exceptionally be interfered with by courts. The policy plainly satisfied the statutory requirements and was lawful. Further investigation of the circumstances of all those in the pool of those in housing need would exhaust resources and invite further doubt. Earlier cases had been superceded by the amendments to the section. The courts should be very slow indeed to interfere with a local housing authority’s allocation policy, unless it breached the requirements of Part 6. Provided that ‘reasonable preference’ is given to all those who are homeless within the meaning of Part 7, there is no reason why an authority should not decide to give some homeless groups priority over others, as long as the decision is not irrational.
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2009] UKHL 14, [2009] 3 All ER 755, [2009] PTSR 632, [2009] NPC 36, [2009] BLGR 627
Bailii, HL, Times
Housing Act 1996 167
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Lambeth London Borough Council, ex parte Ashley 1996
. .
Appeal from – Ahmad, Regina (on the Application Of) v London Borough of Newham CA 29-Feb-2008
. .
At First Instance – Ahmad, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Newham Admn 11-Sep-2007
The claimant challenged the council’s policy for allocating council houses. The policy would allocate applicants to a class, and once a property was available to that class, it was given to the person longest on the list within that class. . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Islington ex parte Terry Margaret Reilly ex parte Sandra Mannix Admn 2-Oct-1998
. .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Tower Hamlets ex parte Uddin Admn 5-May-1999
. .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Barnet ex parte G; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte W; Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte A HL 23-Oct-2003
The applicants sought to oblige the local authority, in compliance with its duties under the 1989 Act, to provide a home for children, and where necessary an accompanying adult.
Held: There were four hurdles for the applicants to cross. They . .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth v A CA 23-Jul-2002
The court considered the lawfulness of the defendant authority’s housing policy. Collins J said: ‘Unless it is clear that no applicants who are not entitled to preference are able to compete on equal terms with those who are, the scheme cannot . .
Cited – Regina v London Borough of Lambeth ex parte Uddin Admn 5-May-1999
. .
Cited – Regina v Lambeth London Borough Council, ex parte Ashley 1996
. .
Cited – London Borough of Lambeth v A CA 23-Jul-2002
The court considered the lawfulness of the defendant authority’s housing policy. Collins J said: ‘Unless it is clear that no applicants who are not entitled to preference are able to compete on equal terms with those who are, the scheme cannot . .
Cited – Wahid v London Borough of Tower Hamlets CA 7-Mar-2002
Gilliatt The appellant suffered from schizophrenia. He was refused permission to apply for judicial review and for orders requiring the local authority not just to provide suitable accommodation but better . .
Cited by:
Cited – Birmingham City Council v Ali and Others; Moran v Manchester City Council HL 1-Jul-2009
Homelessness Status Requires LA Action
The House considered appeals challenging whether local authorities who gave unacceptable housing to the homeless had satisfied their obligations to them as homeless people. What was meant by the phrase ‘accommodation which it would be reasonable for . .
Mentioned – Birmingham City Council v Qasim and Others CA 20-Oct-2009
The council argued that the defendant was not a tenant granted to him as a secure tenancy since he had not been granted the tenancy in accordance with its policies. An employee had manipulated the Council’s system to grant tenancies to bypass the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Housing
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.314312