Tag Archive for 'allocation policy'

New Local Authority Allocation Guidance

Published by NL on 05/12/2009 in Allocation, Housing law - All, Introductory and Demoted tenancies and secure-tenancy. 2 Comments Tags: , .

DCLG has released the new Code of Guidance for Local Authority allocation of housing. There is a slightly unfinished page about it here and a press release here. The Code of Guidance itself is here [link to pdf].

We will come back to the Guidance in a proper post soon, but the stated principle is:

The guidance makes clear that first priority for housing must be given to those in greatest housing need. But it also encourages local authorities to make greater use of the existing freedoms and flexibilities to prioritise needs specific to their local area. It also encourages them to do more to involve and inform their communities when setting their local priorities so that local views are reflected in allocation policies.

By the way, since John Healy became housing minister, every single bloody press release begins “Housing Minister John Healey has today…”. This didn’t happen with Beckett, or even with Flint, and the relentless repetitive self-promotion, even claiming credit for decisions that far pre-dated his reign, is getting more than a little tiresome and perhaps somewhat counterproductive.

Without exception

Published by J on 15/09/2009 in Allocation, FLW case note and Housing law - All. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

R (Joseph) v LB Newham [2008] EWHC 1637 (Admin)

Blanket policies are unlawful. A first year law undergraduate could tell you that. Any lawyer or public body which didn’t know that would deserve public humilliation, probably involving being slapped across the face with a fish. Even a cursory flick through a public law text book would give you ample support for this elementary proposition of public law.

It is, therefore, something of a surprise to see Stadlen J dealing with… a blanket policy.

Mr and Mrs Joseph are secure tenants of the London Borough of Newham. At some time in the distant past, he was overpaid certain monies (probably Housing Benefit) and, when the Council sought to recover the monies, Mr Joseph disputed their entitlement to repayment. Nothing further seems to have happened, in particular, the Council took no steps to actually recover the money. Other than this one dispute, Mr Joseph had “assiduously paid his current rent and [had] been a perfect… model payer of his rent” (at [4]).

However, when Mr Joseph applied for a transfer, the Council declined to allow the same to go ahead on the basis that he had not repaid the disputed overpayment. In particular, as the Council said by letter of August 3, 2007:

“… it is the policy of the Council not to make offers to applicants who owe property related debts…”

This, as his Lordship noted, appeared to be “… a blanket policy not to make any offer to an applicant who owed a property related debt…”

Mr Joseph therefore applied for permission to move for judicial review of the decision in August 2007 not to permit him to take part in a transfer.

His Lordship was rather surprised by the approach taken by the Council:

(a) it was remarkable that no steps had been taken to recover the debt, but that it had been left as a “Sword of Damocles” hanging over Mr Joseph’s head;

(b) the Council did not appear to be entirely clear about whether or not the debt was now statute barred;

(c) the Council took – for the first time and without any evidence – the point that Mr Joseph could have utilized the internal appeal process rather than seek to move for Judicial Review;

(d) this was a “lamentable state of affairs” and “very unfortunate, to say the least” (at [9]) in circumstnaces where the total debt was only £892;

(e) his Lordship expressed the hope that there could be “some kind of reconsideration of the matter at an appropriate level in the Council… so that this matter can be resolved one way or another…” (at [10])

and, in the circumstances, it was appropriate to grant permission to move for Judicial Review.

I am – as may be clear – outraged, amazed and disapointed that a public authority has a blanket policy and sincerely hope that this judgment reminds parties of the fact that such policies are unlawful. It’s a shame that Mr Joseph acted in person, since conduct like this deserves significant costs awards being made!

(with thanks to HHJ Madge and Jan Luba QC for alerting us to this case via their excellent “Housing Law” column in Legal Action)

Allocations policies: Publication

Published by Dave on 04/08/2009 in Allocation, FLW case note, Housing law - All and secure-tenancy. 3 Comments Tags: , , .

In R (Boolen) v Barking and Dagenham LBC reported on Lawtel, the Claimant applied for judicial review of the the council’s allocation scheme on the basis that

(1) the council had implemented a “local connection” criterion into its prioritisation decisions after bidding had ended, but that local connection criterion was not set out in the policy though “it was averred to”.  It was argued that the lack of publicity given to that criterion and its consequential unavailability to the public meant that the policy was unlawful.  Indeed, on the facts, it appears that the Claimant only found out about the criterion after she had been top bidder for properties and been refused “as the years progressed”.  Readers will remember that this was the one point of success for Ms Lin in R(Lin) v Barnet LBC [2007] EWCA Civ 132 in which the CA held (at [48]) that, where a criterion was “central to the operation of a scheme”, it was required to be included in that scheme.

and (2) that the operation of the local connection criterion effectively imposed a blanket ban on households who did not have that connection.

In an unreported extempore judgment, CMG Ockleton (sitting as a Deputy Judge) refused the application for judicial review.  As regards the first point, the Deputy Judge found that “the exercise of the discretionary element of the policy did not have to be published and set out in the policy itself.  it bore no relation to the central issue of prioritisation and was clearly averred to in the policy itself.  Moreover it was not an important qualification and would, if incorporated into the policy document, have made the policy unwieldy”.  I have set that out from what appears on Lawtel partly because that seems counterintuitive (and, perhaps, if Robert Latham or Jonathan Manning [counsel for the Claimant and Defendant respectively] are reading this, they will let us know what “averred to” in the policy actually means and whether, in Robert Latham’s case, he will seek to appeal).  On the second point, which I think was probably a difficult argument to run in light of Ahmad (links to our note), the Deputy Judge found that this was a question of degree and all applications were reviewed on their merits and properties allocated by reference to prioritisation which was the overriding consideration.