Comments on: Housing Associations and public function to be tested? http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/ The Joy of Housing Law Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:15:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Nearly Legal http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-7844 Nearly Legal Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:03:10 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-7844 Umm Richard, thanks for the comment, but you might want to check the current front page of the blog for a detailed discussion of Weaver v L&Q ! Umm Richard, thanks for the comment, but you might want to check the current front page of the blog for a detailed discussion of Weaver v L&Q !

]]> By: Richard Paris http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-7843 Richard Paris Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:38:36 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-7843 Well what a turn up!! It maybe that Susan Weaver lost her argument about London & Quadrant using ground 8 against her BUT Richards LJ did find that RSLs were public authorities when allocating, managing and terminating tenancies, were bound to act within the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 and were judicially reviewable. Seems Peabody-v-Greene from 1978 is no longer good law - was it ever? How will RSLs, the National Housing Federation, the Housing Corporation and most importantly L&Q react? Will L&Q go to the Court of Appeal? I still struggle with the notion that any RSL would want to argue it could behave in a Wednesbury unreasonable way and would not want to be acting in a Human Rights compatible way!! Maybe the financial imperative has the edge even in a post-sub-prime market melt-down. Anyone see a pattern emerging with L&Q? NBHA-v-Matthews in 2004 (RSL using Ground 8) also involved L&Q-v-Morgan. L&Q-v-Ansell coming up at House of Lords in October. Again question why doesn't Housing Corporation do anything when an RSL patently breaches regulatory guidance? Well what a turn up!! It maybe that Susan Weaver lost her argument about London & Quadrant using ground 8 against her BUT Richards LJ did find that RSLs were public authorities when allocating, managing and terminating tenancies, were bound to act within the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998 and were judicially reviewable.

Seems Peabody-v-Greene from 1978 is no longer good law - was it ever?

How will RSLs, the National Housing Federation, the Housing Corporation and most importantly L&Q react? Will L&Q go to the Court of Appeal?

I still struggle with the notion that any RSL would want to argue it could behave in a Wednesbury unreasonable way and would not want to be acting in a Human Rights compatible way!! Maybe the financial imperative has the edge even in a post-sub-prime market melt-down.

Anyone see a pattern emerging with L&Q? NBHA-v-Matthews in 2004 (RSL using Ground 8) also involved L&Q-v-Morgan. L&Q-v-Ansell coming up at House of Lords in October.

Again question why doesn’t Housing Corporation do anything when an RSL patently breaches regulatory guidance?

]]> By: simply wondered http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5706 simply wondered Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:30:21 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5706 the generally incompetent bit was just for colour - if i was making a case about a dog, i would most likely not bother stating it had 4 legs either. just personal experience with one of (i hope) the worst examples of the class. the generally incompetent bit was just for colour - if i was making a case about a dog, i would most likely not bother stating it had 4 legs either. just personal experience with one of (i hope) the worst examples of the class.

]]> By: Nearly Legal http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5696 Nearly Legal Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:10:27 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5696 More or less the same thing, yes - relies on stock transfers to make the point. Back to Poplar Housing v Donoghue. Any attempt to extend local authority duty to RSLs relies on the RSL as effectively a proxy for the LA. The trouble is that social housing in and of itself is not a proxy LA activity or even proxy state activity - although the latter is less clear. Plus the assumption that an RSL is incompetent per se is one I can imagine a Court being unwilling to make a general rule on. By the way, there is no right to a home per se under HRA - this one got thrashed out very early on. More or less the same thing, yes - relies on stock transfers to make the point. Back to Poplar Housing v Donoghue. Any attempt to extend local authority duty to RSLs relies on the RSL as effectively a proxy for the LA. The trouble is that social housing in and of itself is not a proxy LA activity or even proxy state activity - although the latter is less clear.

Plus the assumption that an RSL is incompetent per se is one I can imagine a Court being unwilling to make a general rule on.

By the way, there is no right to a home per se under HRA - this one got thrashed out very early on.

]]> By: simply wondered http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5695 simply wondered Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:27:52 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5695 while i think it might run, i lack your experience so will give way on the argument. so let's go another way: under s6 HRA the local authority has a positive obligation to safeguard the individual's right to a home and family life; by delegating its powers to (alleged) non-public bodies (who couldn't run a bath even if you showed them both taps and and turned them on) it has failed to carry it out. by definition, if rsl's are non-public they can do things to prejudice the rights of those in social housing which the public body can't do. the LA has thus discriminated against those in need of its services by such a delegation. it runs against the purpose of the act to allow such an inequality, so the same rules must be imposed upon those providing services for the LA. same thing the other way up, isn't it? (sounds exactly like qui facit per alium... as above - not to mention why i think the kampelmann test would work) might not use the 'bath' bit in court. while i think it might run, i lack your experience so will give way on the argument.
so let’s go another way: under s6 HRA the local authority has a positive obligation to safeguard the individual’s right to a home and family life; by delegating its powers to (alleged) non-public bodies (who couldn’t run a bath even if you showed them both taps and and turned them on) it has failed to carry it out. by definition, if rsl’s are non-public they can do things to prejudice the rights of those in social housing which the public body can’t do. the LA has thus discriminated against those in need of its services by such a delegation. it runs against the purpose of the act to allow such an inequality, so the same rules must be imposed upon those providing services for the LA.
same thing the other way up, isn’t it? (sounds exactly like qui facit per alium… as above - not to mention why i think the kampelmann test would work)
might not use the ‘bath’ bit in court.

]]> By: Nearly Legal http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5650 Nearly Legal Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:24:25 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5650 Simply. The trouble is that while that might be an ok argument when LA stock transfers are involved, it doesn't fly so well when the other areas of an HA's housing function are taken into account. What of the shorthold tenants? Much more like a private landlord for example. I think you face the same problems as the public law or human rights lines of argument. Simply. The trouble is that while that might be an ok argument when LA stock transfers are involved, it doesn’t fly so well when the other areas of an HA’s housing function are taken into account. What of the shorthold tenants? Much more like a private landlord for example. I think you face the same problems as the public law or human rights lines of argument.

]]> By: Vaz http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5645 Vaz Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:20:57 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5645 There is discrimination and velvet tyranny in social housing where housing officers collectively seek the eviction of tenants to make them homeless and issue spurious possession claims in county courts using tax payers money. There is discrimination and velvet tyranny in social housing where housing officers collectively seek the eviction of tenants to make them homeless and issue spurious possession claims in county courts using tax payers money.

]]> By: simply wondered http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5639 simply wondered Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:34:10 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5639 public function...the test in kampelmann appearing looser than in british gas: 'It may, however, be relied on against (organizations or bodies which are subject to the authority or control of the State or have special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable to relations between individuals, such as local or regional authorities) or other bodies which, irrespective of their legal form, have been given responsibility, by the public authorities and under their supervision, for providing a public service' doesn't this last bit cover them? (too crappy to bold it i'm afraid) purposively, the provision of social housing is a state function delgated to a quasi-private body. (i get this crap from a certain rsl all the time who claim they are/aren't a rsl as it suits them.) public function…the test in kampelmann appearing looser than in british gas:
‘It may, however, be relied on against (organizations or bodies which are subject to the authority or control of the State or have special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable to relations between individuals, such as local or regional authorities)

or other bodies which, irrespective of their legal form, have been given responsibility, by the public authorities and under their supervision, for providing a public service’

doesn’t this last bit cover them? (too crappy to bold it i’m afraid)
purposively, the provision of social housing is a state function delgated to a quasi-private body. (i get this crap from a certain rsl all the time who claim they are/aren’t a rsl as it suits them.)

]]> By: Nearly Legal http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5633 Nearly Legal Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:39:26 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5633 Why 'almost certainly'? Why ‘almost certainly’?

]]> By: simply wondered http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5632 simply wondered Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:08:11 +0000 http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2008/03/housing-associations-and-public-function-to-be-tested/#comment-5632 wary of starting a random hare when my knowledge is rudimentary, but.... given that housing associations will almost certainly be emanations of the state under kampelmann, why doesn't that close the circle? wary of starting a random hare when my knowledge is rudimentary, but….

given that housing associations will almost certainly be emanations of the state under kampelmann, why doesn’t that close the circle?

]]>