Site icon swarb.co.uk

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 secure that the necessary head start is given’. A policy was irrational if it did not contain ‘a mechanism for identifying those with the greatest need and ensuring that so far as possible and subject to reasonable countervailing factors (for example, past failure to pay rent etc) they are given priority.’

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1084, [2002] HLR 57, [2002] All ER (D) 324

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Housing Act 1996 167

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

ApprovedRegina v Lambeth London Borough Council, ex parte Ashley 1996
. .

Cited by:

CitedLin, (Regina on the Application of) v London Borough of Barnet CA 22-Feb-2007
The claimant challenged the authority’s housing policy which sought to implement national guidelines awarding points to housing applicants and allocating housing accordingly. He said it did not give adequate protection to the homeless.
Held: . .
CitedAhmad, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Newham HL 4-Mar-2009
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 . .
CitedAhmad, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Newham HL 4-Mar-2009
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 . .
CitedBirmingham 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: 11 October 2022; Ref: scu.178082

Exit mobile version