header-logo header-logo

29 June 2015
Issue: 7659 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

12-month social housing bar "unlawful"

A central London borough unlawfully prevented a family made homeless by the housing benefit cap from registering for social housing, the High Court has held.

Ruling in Alemi v Westminster City Council [2015] EWHC 1765 (Admin), Judge Blair QC held the council’s policy of suspending homeless people from bidding for social housing in the borough for 12 months was unlawful as it breached the duty imposed by s 166A(3) of the Housing Act 1996.

Under s 166A(3), certain people have a “reasonable preference” under housing allocation schemes, including people who are “homeless” or owed a housing duty.

Ms A, who lived with her employed husband and three children was made homeless from private rented accommodation as a result of the Local Housing Allowance cap. She applied to the local authority, Westminster City Council, for help and accepted its offer of temporary accommodation in Enfield.

However, the council prevented her from bidding for social housing for 12 months, in keeping with its stated policy.

The council contended that it was legitimate to temporarily suspend the bidding rights of a “reasonable preference” group that had been securing a greater tranche of available properties than planned, so as to allow another reasonable preference group to catch up.

Delivering his judgment, however, Blair J said Part VI of the 1996 Act “does not permit the removal of a whole sub-group from a group which s 166A(3) requires be given reasonable preference in the allocation of social housing, when that sub-group is not defined by reference to differentiating features related to the allocation of housing, but applies a simple time bar to all who otherwise qualify. It is unlawful.”

Jayesh Kunwardia, partner at Hodge Jones & Allen, who acted for Ms A, says: “This landmark ruling makes it abundantly clear that homeless people have the right to bid for social housing from the time they secure a full housing duty from a local authority rather than being suspended for one year. 

“Westminster’s subtle way of registering the homeless, saying they will have points but denying them the right to bid for 12 months is now deemed unlawful.” 

 

Issue: 7659 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll