Comments on: Ahmad: the cup's half empty

By: Bill

Bill — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:59:23 +0000

None of the comments so far have addressed the theme that the HL picked up about the right of LAs to take local decisions. In formulating an allocations policy it is not ALL about the reasonable preference categories.

The decision recognised that giving existing tenants with lower priority some (very small) prospect of a transfer was a reasonable thing to do. Council Members represent the whole community and are entitled to decide on a policy which suits their whole community whilst complying with their statutory obligations. They at least are democratically accountable – not something council officers, lawyers or judges can say – and if the community doesn’t agree with with policy can vote them out.

The Ahmad decision recognises their right to strike a balance and that this can be a reasonable thing to do even on the LAs with greatest demand.

By: NL

NL — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:38:55 +0000

LP – I can only hope the intelligibility rubs off, because I couldn’t make head nor tail of what you were saying, a couple of cheap caricatures aside. I think you seem to be saying that it isn’t fair that people with a reasonable preference have a shot at social housing when people, also on low income and in poor conditions don’t. You will hear no argument from me that the restricted availability of social housing doesn’t make for unfairness, perceived and actual, of all sorts.

When I pointed out that Ahmad doesn’t change reasonable preference, you then appeared to be saying that it is selfish people hanging on in hostels and overcrowded housing because they want secure tenancies, when there is perfectly OK private accommodation and the LHA available (let alone all those people breeding irresponsibly), who are preventing all the no preference people from getting social housing. I think this is what you’re saying, but it is hard to tell. When at the end you resorted to a version of the why don’t you go and live in X argument, it all went too, too Daily Mail to really merit much consideration.

Because I took this to be what you were saying, I did you the favour of not addressing it (actually, I did respond, then replaced it, because I couldn’t be sure that you were actually saying something quite that daft.)

But you complain I haven’t responded to your points, so here goes…

1. Ahmad doesn’t change reasonable preference, so whatever it is you appear to be saying is by the by.
2. Do you know the numbers in Camden’s preference band and no preference band? I don’t, but if they are anything like the inner London LAs I do know, then the nons will outnumber the prefs by a factor of 4 or 5 to 1. Plus, if you abolished reasonable preference, those people would still remain part of the housing list. So no practical difference for the vast majority of the nons in terms of a chance at social housing.
3. You give the LHA for a two bed. As you no doubt well know, the real pressure is for 3 bed and upwards (that overcrowding you mentioned). For your private sector alternative to be even remotely a viable runner, you will have to give figures on a) the LHA for 3 plus bed properties; b) the market rent for 3 plus bed properties; c) the availability of 3 bed plus private rentals for those on the LHA. Again, I don’t know Camden’s figures in this respect,but the boroughs I do know have a completely catastrophic shortfall of affordable (LHA rent level) private 3 bed plus properties. I would be surprised if Camden was any different.
4. If there are all these wonderful private sector properties available on the LHA, why are you worried about those with no preference? Surely they can also move into these places, always assuming they don’t expect a mansion. In fact, given the availability of the LHA and private sector accommodation, on your argument, why is there any need for the large majority of social housing? (I am assuming you are excepting sheltered accommodation, emergency accommodation and existing tenants. Possibly a wrong assumption. What of people seeking a transfer? – you have given your answer on overcrowding).

In short, I hadn’t replied because what I thought you were saying, as far as I could make it out, was, putting it kindly: utterly lacking support in fact or figures; internally contradictory; and based on, at best, a kneejerk anecdotal moral judgment rather than considered practical or economic sense. I felt encouraged in this conclusion because you completely failed to respond to my question as to what would constitute fairness in an allocation system dealing with scarce resources absent reasonable preference.

If I am wrong about what it is that you thought you were saying, please let me know. But in the meantime may I just say that if you are a housing related lawyer, I look forward to going up against you.

By: LP

LP — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:06:11 +0000

I know that!! I am a lawyer- but you misunderstand my points entirely and so I will blog with more intelligible creatures…..

By: NL

NL — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:44:26 +0000

LP, the Ahmad judgment doesn’t change the reasonable preference requirement. The categories of need that are to be given a reasonable preference are set out in statute.

By: LP

LP — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:29:49 +0000

NL I appreciate your criticism- I am referring to both people who are homeless in temporary accomodation and those who occupy an overcrowded council home. There have been cases where a homelessness application has been made while living as a tenant in council accomodation because the accommodation was extremely overcrowded and/or insanitary- just to clarify- most people don’t stand a chance of getting a concil flat unless they fall into a few reasonable preference categories (in London anyway).
I just point out that there are other options for both those in a hostel or an unsatisfactory council homes that the tax payer is footing the bill for (rent deposit scheme, LHA – two cases I have worked on have been offered these schemes and to stay on the list to get out of their overcrowded conditions). Refusal by the teanat/hostel resident is due to the giving up of a reasonable preference strand which puts them lower down the list. LHA in WC1 pays out £520/week for a 2 bedroom- what do these people want- a mansion with a garden?) Is it FAIR that social housing for a small minority of people in a reasonable preference group manage to get it, and other people on low incomes have to endure private renting for the in any event? Some people in social housing should take responsibility for their decisions, such as having children they expect state welfare and larger housing to look after and take care of overcrowding, while a lot of people can not even afford to and would not start a family knowing that they have no means to do so unil they are able to earn a sufficient living. The only way housing authorities can divy up the small amount of housing is by having an HAS, and that represents what they perceive as fair within their borough. You may not see HAS by the LA as fair, but I’m sure a lot of other countries from where people flee to the UK see it as a luxury- life may not be fair in the UK- but what regime would you pick? Congo? Somalia? I’d rather not.

By: NL

NL — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:19:17 +0000

LP. I do not have your sunny optimism concerning the LHA. The issues over what counts as a locality, for instance, have been rehearsed in the case reports on this blog. I also don’t share your optimism that suitable ‘appropriately sized’ places are readily available via the private sector in areas like Camden at LHA rent levels. I doubt that many people are prepared to stick out overcrowded accommodation for a long itme in persuit of a secure tenancy, but you do seem to be confusing homeless applications (Part VII) with applications to the main housing list (Part VI), which is what is at issue here. Unless you mean the reasonable preference for homelessness, which won’t be affected by this decision in any event. So I don’t see how your conclusion follows from this case.

You will in any event have to say more to explain to me how the decision supports LA’s ‘efforts to provide a fair system of allocation’. It may do, but I can’t see what idea of fairness you are basing this on.

By: LP

LP — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:15:39 +0000

The HL decision in Ahmad represents a policy decision and a close to the challenge of allocation schemes, but scope for those who have not been allocated the priority that the allocation scheme would technically give them if applied properly. Housing waiting lists are so long that growing families inevitably face overcrowded conditions for a long time, unless they decide to rent privately, with the help of Local Housing Allowance which will pay the average market value for an appropriate sized place. With this LHA no-one really need be homeless or living in poor conditions unless they choose to suffer it out for a long time because ultimately they want a secure tenancy, which is like gold dust. Camden, our local council, encourages private renting and will help overcrowded families in hostels to get a bigger bedroom property and pay their deposit plus, if they are on benefits, the rent, even if market rate. But often the prospective council tenants refuse this offer as they want to retain homeless priority to get a secure tenancy. So, although the decision may take something away from desperate families, it was perhaps a necessary solution to a very difficult and highly complex social problem, giving local authorities a bit more power as opposed to undermining their efforts to provide a fair system of allocation within their boroughs.

By: dave

dave — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:10:08 +0000

Yes, I agree, NL. There is still scope for challenge, indeed an irrationality challenge, on the actual operation of the scheme. This becomes crucial, I think, when one deals with the interaction between Parts 6 & 7. So @ Cait and JS, there is scope for considering whether a Part 6 applicant should also be considered by the LA as a Part 7 applicant without the necessity of a formal Part 7 application where they “have reason to believe” that an applicant is homeless. That case law, not discussed in Alam v LBTH but the point was developed there to an extent, raises some important issues about the interaction between the two Parts. I would anticipate such issues (and others) to continue to be chipped away at. As I suggested, the cup’s only half empty.

By: Here’s £10,000, take a year off, law firms tell graduate recruits « Insitelaw magazine

Fri, 06 Mar 2009 03:25:44 +0000

[...] Nearly Legal Housing blog: Ahmad: the cup’s half empty As they say in American tv shows: ohmigod. R(Ahmad) v LB Newham [2009] UKHL 14 is now available and the Lords have done a pretty good job at destroying the jurisprudence built up by the High Court and Court of Appeal in Part 6 cases. More… [...]

By: NL

NL — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:36:44 +0000

Clocked up time in regard to those who have a reasonable preference, with no distinguishing between levels of need above a single ‘reasonable preference’ qualification. Not sure how this fosters a sustainable community, as those who couldn’t get a shot at housing through no reasonable preference before, still can’t. It just means increased desperation for the most desperate – in Newham at least.

The judgment makes no difference to the existing allocations policies of other LAs. If the allocation policy addresses cumulative need, like most of those in south London, for instance, the LA has to abide by its allocation policy, or face JR if it fails to do so.

The headline result is that an allocation policy/CBL scheme that fails to deal with cumulative need above awarding ‘reasonable preference’ is now nearly, although not wholly, impossible to challenge as unlawful per se.