In R (XC) v Southwark LBC [2017] EWHC 736 (Admin) Garnham J held that the housing allocation scheme operated by the Council under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 as amended is lawful.  The relative priorities included priority for working households who are making a contribution to the local economy.  The scheme is indirectly discriminatory, but the critical question is whether the discrimination is justified as being proportionate to achieving a legitimate objective.  The scheme has the legitimate aim it set out: the creation of sustainable and balanced communities and encouraging residents to make a contribution to the local community.  The priority “stars” have a rational connection to that objective.  The real question was whether the scheme is the least intrusive measure which could be used without unacceptably compromising the objective.  Garnham J concluded that, looking at the scheme as a whole, it was.  It involved discrimination in order to achieve the stated aims, which are authorised by primary legislation and follow statutory guidance.  Garnham J said, at paragraph 90: “Those who fall outside the groups given preference are, inevitably, exposed to a detriment.  But that is integral to any reasonable preference scheme”.  Nonetheless, two things must be shown: that the measure adopted is the least intrusive which could be used without unacceptably compromising the objective; and that a fair balance has been struck between securing the objective and its effect on the rights of the class of which the claimant is a member.  Garnham J said, at paragraph 97: “Here the Council has devised a scheme which seeks to address the needs of all the classes of applicant in its area.  It has made provision for those with priority need, for the homeless and the vulnerable, and for those who need to move on medical or welfare or hardship grounds. It is entitled, consistent with the Secretary of State’s Guidance, to favour those in work and those who volunteer”. Read more »

In Sheffield City Council v Oliver (2007) EWCA Civ 225 the local authority was unsuccessful in its appeal from an Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) decision concerning the funding of major refurbishment works to several blocks of flats of which it is the freeholder.  Most of the flats were let as social housing.  Some, including the respondent’s, were let on long leases. A service charge provision required the respondent to pay a reasonable part of the costs incurred by the local authority in repairing and improving the structure and exterior of her block. The cost of the refurbishment project was more than £11 million.  The local authority had received government funding of almost £3 million from a community energy programme.  However, only part of the estate, which included the block in which the respondent’s flat was situated, fell within the qualifying area. The local authority claimed some £4,400 of community funding for work done specifically to her property. However it decided to recoup the costs of the works from her through the service charge without deducting the sum received in funding.  It considered that the funding should be treated as a contribution to the project as a whole and allocated equally among all long leaseholders, not just among those who were strictly eligible.  The Upper Tribunal held that the service charge provision in the respondent’s lease did not permit that course; that each leaseholder had only to contribute to the cost of works on his own block, not to the estate as a whole, and that the respondent should be credited with the amount of funding attributable to her property. It concluded that the cost of the government-funded work had not been “incurred” by the local authority within the meaning of the lease.  The issue was whether, on a proper construction of the lease, the local authority had to give credit for the third-party funding. Read more »

In Nottingham City Council v Parr (2017) EWCA Civ 188 the Court of Appeal held that it was not unlawful to impose a licence condition restricting the occupation of a house in multiple occupation to full-time students. Although the licensing regime concerned the physical characteristics of the relevant property, the personal characteristics and activities of potential occupiers will often be relevant and require investigation in contexts connected both with HMOs and with housing standards generally.

In Turley v Wandsworth LBC [2017] EWCA Civ 189 the Court of Appeal held that a condition in the Housing Act 1985 s.87(b) which required, up until 1 April 2012, that the long-term partner of a secure tenant had to have resided with the secure tenant throughout the 12-month period prior to the secure tenant’s death in order to succeed them, was not manifestly without reasonable foundation.  Even if the situations of common law spouses and married or civil partnership spouses were analogous for the purpose of ECHR art. 14, the difference in treatment between them was justified and proportionate.

As regards justification, local authority secure tenancies are a valuable and limited resource. Although it has long been policy to grant a limited right of succession to family members for whom the property had also been their home, regard has also to be had to the interests of those on the waiting list and of local authorities in making best use of housing stock. It had therefore been policy to require a degree of permanence in the relevant relationship. That requirement was inherently satisfied in the case of spouses who had entered into a legal marriage or civil partnership. However, there was no such formal commitment in the case of a common law spouse or other family member of the kind defined in s.113. As part of that balance of interests, it was legitimate to seek to limit rights of succession to family members whose relationship was of a permanent character. It was also legitimate, subject to the issue of proportionality, to treat that requirement as sufficiently satisfied in the case of legal spouses, but not by other relationships which did not involve the same formal commitment. Read more »