The issue on the appeal in Lomax v Gosport Borough Council (2018) EWCA Civ 1846 was whether the Council correctly applied Sections 175 and 177 of the Housing Act 1996 in concluding that it was reasonable for a severely disabled applicant for housing to continue to occupy her accommodation. In concluding that the Council’s conclusion was erroneous, the Court of Appeal said that in determining whether it is reasonable for a particular applicant to continue to occupy her current accommodation the same approach should be adopted as to reasonableness as in the case of the question whether an applicant has unreasonably refused an offer of suitable accommodation. The decision maker must have regard to all the personal characteristics of the applicant, and then take into account of those individual aspects. This includes subjective factors and an objective test. The test is with respect to the particular applicant and the particular accommodation, including its location.

In R (Gullu) v Hillingdon LBC [2018] EWHC 1937 (Admin) Mostyn J said, at paragraph 22:-

“… this case concerns the provision of social housing by a local housing authority. In my opinion there is … in this field a generous margin of appreciation. The court should be very cautious indeed when faced with a claim to strike down a measure which seeks to parcel out fairly a local authority’s housing stock at a time where there is a national housing crisis and where the demand for public housing vastly exceeds the supply. Were the court to afford an advantage to a class of claimants … then it will be at the expense of another group who will find themselves jumped in the queue. When it comes to housing local authorities have to make hard political judgments of a macro-economic nature which the courts are ill-equipped to second-guess. These judgments are the expression of the local democratic process. Hence the need for there to be a strong and obvious case before the court will interfere.”

The Judge found that, if there were any discrimination in the Council’s allocation scheme, it was justified, and there was no failure to comply with the PSED.

In R (TW, SW and EM) v Hillingdon LBC [2018] EWHC 1791(Admin) the Claimants challenged the Social Housing Allocation Policy (December 2016) (“the Allocation Scheme”) of the London Borough of Hillingdon (“the Council”) in so far as it provides: (1) a condition that only households with at least 10 years’ continuous residence in-borough qualify to join the three welfare-based bands (A-C) of its housing register (“the residence qualification”); (2) additional preference for such households who are in Bands C and B of the housing register (“the residence uplift”), and (3) additional preference for those in Bands C and B who are working households on low income (“the working household uplift”). Choudhury J granted permission on three grounds. First, that both the residence qualification and the residence uplift discriminate indirectly and unlawfully under Sections 19 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA”) against persons with the protected characteristic of “race” and that, as Irish Travellers, the Claimants have such a characteristic (Ground 1). Second, that the working household uplift discriminates indirectly and unlawfully under the same statutory provisions against persons with the protected characteristics of “disability” and “sex” (Ground 2). Third, in formulating the three provisions under challenge the Defendant acted in breach of its obligations under Section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004 (“CA”) (Ground 3).

Read more »

The three appeals [2018] EWCA Civ 1616 raised a common issue concerning what is required of local housing authorities in order to comply with the Review Regulations which apply to a review under Section 202 of the Housing Act 1996 when a reviewing officer sends out a minded-to letter indicating an intention to make a decision contrary to the interests of the applicant for homelessness assistance. In short, the question is whether the letter must specify in terms that the applicant (or a representative) may make representations to the reviewer orally at a face-to-face meeting. The Court of Appeal holds that there is no such requirement.   No more is required for an effective notification than to state that the applicant “may make representations to the reviewer orally or in writing or both orally and in writing”. Nothing more is required in order to conform with the principle of legality and the fundamental requisite of the rule of law that the law should be made known and that individuals must be able to know of their legal rights and obligations. Patten LJ, with whom David Richards LJ agreed, said, at paragraph 24:- Read more »

MHCLG has issued detailed non-statutory Guidance for Local Housing Authorities, “Houses in Multiple Occupation and residential property licensing reform”, on the implementation of requirements set out in 2018 Statutory Instruments on the licensing of HMOs. The scope of mandatory licensing has been extended so that properties used as HMOs in England which house 5 people or more in two or more separate households will in many cases require a licence. The minimum size to be applied to rooms used for sleeping accommodation has been deferred.  Requirements have been added relating to the provision of refuse disposal in licensed properties.

Chapter 2 of the Guidance relates to the extension of mandatory HMO licensing, including implementation and transitional provisions. Chapter 3 relates to new mandatory licence conditions, that is mandatory sleeping room sizes and waste disposal requirements, including sanctions.

The Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/730, coming into force on 9 July 2018, amend the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (England) Regulations 2006 in order to make a new category of persons eligible for an allocation of social housing and homelessness assistance. They make provision for persons who have been transferred to the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act 2016 s.67 and have limited leave to remain under para. 352ZH of the Immigration Rules to be eligible for an allocation of social housing and homeless assistance if they are “habitually resident” in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland.
Read more »

In XPQ v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC (2018) EWHC 1391 (QB) Langstaff J held that Directive 2011/36/EU on Preventing and Combating Trafficking in Human Beings does not enable a trafficked person to claim damages for any failure by a local housing authority to provide accommodation that is safe and appropriate.

In Davies v Hertfordshire County Council (2018) EWCA Civ 379 the Court of Appeal considered whether a failure by the Council to comply with its statutory duties under Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 could provide a defence to a claim for possession.  Sharp LJ said:-

“17.    The obligation imposed on those who are subject to the statutory duty under section 11 is not confined to the making of strategic arrangements: it is to ensure that decisions affecting children have regard to the need to safeguard them and promote their welfare. That does not mean however that the particular function being carried out is redefined, and the reach or impact of the section 11(2) duty is qualified both by the nature of the function being carried out, and what the particular circumstances require: …” Read more »

The Homelessness (Review Procedure etc) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/223, set out the procedure to be followed by a local housing authority (“LHA”) when issuing a notice to bring their duties to an end in cases of an applicant’s deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate. An applicant is a person who applies to a LHA for accommodation or assistance in obtaining accommodation and the authority have reason to believe they may be homeless or threatened with becoming homeless within 56 days and eligible for assistance. The Regulations revoke and replace the Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Review Procedures) Regulations 1999 and sets out provisions for completing reviews, and specify the public authorities that will have a duty to refer people in England they consider may be homeless or threatened with becoming homeless within 56 days to LHAs.

The Legislative Context is that the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 (“the 2017 Act”) introduces duties on LHAs to intervene at earlier stages to prevent homelessness and to take reasonable steps to relieve homelessness by helping those who are homeless to secure accommodation (the “prevention” and “relief” duties). It also requires LHAs to provide some new homelessness services to all people in their area and expands the categories of people who they have to help to find accommodation. Read more »

The Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Description) (England) Order 2018, laid before Parliament on 23 February 2018, and coming into force on 1 October 2018, SI 2018/221 (“the 2018 Order”), changes the prescribed description of houses in multiple occupation (“HMOs”) that are required to be licensed by a Local Housing Authority (“LHA”) in England. The instrument replaces the Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Prescribed Descriptions) (England) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/371) (“the 2006 Order”), which it revokes. This instrument has the effect of extending the scope of mandatory HMO licensing in England to certain HMOs of less than three storeys. Read more »