The council made offers of accommodation which were rejected as inappropriate by the proposed tenants.
Held: The council was given a responsibility to act reasonably. It was for them, not the court to make that assessment subject only to Wednesbury considerations. Nor was it for the proposed tenants’ views to hold sway. At first instance the court held the tenant to have a right to express a view, but that right was not granted by statute nor common law considerations of procedural fairness. However the terms of a tenancy were governed by Unfair Contract Term Regulations so as to disallow unfair terms. The dominant purpose of the European Directive implemented by the 1999 Regulations is that of consumer protection, albeit promoted in the context of the internal market. The 1999 Regulations do apply to contracts affecting land.
Laws LJ: ‘I am clear that the applicant’s subjective view of suitability is not a factor which a reasonable council is obliged in principle to regard as relevant to their decision . . . No doubt where an authority operates a procedure by which an applicant is in fact afforded an opportunity to view and comment, it would be difficult see how the authority might then rationally decline to consider what the applicant had to say. Of course I do not suggest that the applicant’s views are not capable of being treated by a reasonable authority as relevant to its decision. I hold only that they are not required by law to be so treated.’
Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Auld Mr Justice Wilson
 EWCA Civ 55, Times 27-Feb-2004,  QB 37,  NPC 28,  HLR 29,  BLGR 696,  3 WLR 417,  Eu LR 628
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999
England and Wales
Appeal from – Khatun, Zeb, Iqbal v London Borough of Newham Admn 10-Oct-2003
Each applicant had been accepted as homeless by the respondent, but was then offered alternative accomodation under terms which they found unacceptable. They argued that the Regulations applied. The council had disapplied one statutory guidance in . .
Cited – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
Cited – Slater v London Borough of Lewisham CA 12-Apr-2006
The applicant was heavily pregnant when she was offered a first floor one bedroomed flat. She rejected it.
Held: When a housing authority reviewed its decision on the applicant’s decision not to accept the accommodation offered, that review . .
Cited – Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National Plc and seven Others ComC 24-Apr-2008
The Office sought a declaration that the respondent and other banks were subject to the provisions of the Regulations in their imposition of bank charges to customer accounts, and in particular as to the imposition of penalties or charges for the . .
Cited – Peabody Trust v Reeve ChD 2-Jun-2008
The court was asked to sanction the unilateral alteration by the landlord of the terms of some ten thouand tenancies. The agreements contained a clause which the landlord said allowed for variations under the Housing Act 1985. The landlord was a . .
Cited – Abbey National Plc and others v The Office of Fair Trading CA 26-Feb-2009
The OFT had sought to enquire as to the fairness of the terms on which banks conducted their accounts with consumers, and in particular as to how they charged for unauthorised overdrafts. The banks denied that the OFT had jurisdiction, and now . .
Cited – W v Chief Constable of Northumbria Admn 7-Apr-2009
The claimant challenged the decision of the respondent to reveal to his employers details of a conviction in 1987, when he was 15, for sexual assault on a child, and that he was presently on bail pending a decision for a further allegation. He was . .
Cited – Rochdale Borough Council v Dixon CA 20-Oct-2011
The defendant tenant had disputed payment of water service charges and stopped paying them. The Council obtained a possession order which was suspended on payment or arrears by the defendant at andpound;5.00. The tenant said that when varying the . .
Cited – Nzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.193903