Section: Allocations & Transfers

Criticism Over Rehousing of Woman Who Fled Domestic Violence

Medway Council mishandled the housing application of a woman who had fled domestic violence in another borough. This was the finding of Local Government Ombudsman, Tony Redmond.

In his report, he welcomes the fact that the Council is introducing a new allocation scheme, as it has been in breach of its statutory duty. He also asks the Council to pay compensation to the woman for its errors in handling her housing application.

Miss J became homeless when she left her home following domestic violence from her ex-partner. She moved to Medway, where she has family, and found a place in a women's refuge. She complained that the Council failed to deal properly with her application for housing.

The Ombudsman's report finds that the Council has failed to maintain a full allocation scheme since September 2002 and is, therefore, in breach of its statutory duty. It has been allocating accommodation on the basis of an undocumented system of 'sub-bands'.

The Council accepts these are complex and difficult to understand and that it has, therefore, not been allocating accommodation in line with its published scheme.

In his report, the Ombudsman says:

"In the absence of any documentation to support the verbal explanation of how the sub-bands operate, it seems unlikely that the sub-bands have been applied consistently.

This raises the distinct possibility that people have not been treated equitably. But who, or even how many, it is not possible to say."

The Council failed to maintain proper records of contact with Miss J’s support workers at the women's refuge and failed to reply to correspondence from the refuge and the Citizens Advice Bureau.

The Council offered Miss J temporary accommodation and subsequently discharged its duty when this was refused, although it appears that Miss J had been advised that she would be allowed to stay at the refuge while bidding for permanent accommodation.

The Council also failed to advise Miss J of her statutory review rights before discharging its duty towards her. Further errors were made with Miss J's priority, but these were later corrected.

The Ombudsman recommends that the Council should:

Local Government Ombudsman Report 08 008 647

Priority Adapted Housing for Ex-services Personnel

Housing Minister Iain Wright announced that ex-servicemen and women who are seriously injured are to be given priority for specially adapted social homes.

New guidance issued instructs local authorities to treat seriously injured service personnel as a priority when allocating modified housing.

The guidance seeks to ensure better availability of specially adapted housing with features for service personnel, such as walk-in bathrooms, wider door frames, lowered light switches and entry slopes.

The guidance will also reinforce changes to help make sure all members of the Armed Forces can also apply for social housing in areas in which they were based during their service. Previously, service personnel were restricted by the need to demonstrate a local connection beyond having served there.

The Director General of The Royal British Legion, Chris Simpkins, said:

"Housing was a key issue for the Legion's Honour the Covenant campaign, so we welcome this decision, which will be of real benefit to those who have given so much for their country.

"We welcome the steady progress being made to restore balance to the Military Covenant, which this announcement signifies and which is so important for our Armed Forces."

The announcement forms part of the Ministry of Defence's Service Personnel Command Paper, a package of cross-Government measures designed to end disadvantage experienced by the Armed Forces, their families and veterans as a result of service.

Case Law Update

R(Ariemuguvbe) v Islington LBC [2009] EWHC (Admin)

The claimant was eligible for an allocation of social housing by the Council under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996. She sought accommodation for herself, her husband, their five adult children and three grandchildren.

The Council decided that for the purposes of its allocation scheme, her household would comprise only herself, her husband and the grandchildren. It declined to treat the adult children as part of her household because:

The High Court dismissed a claim for judicial review of that decision. The judge held that Part 6 contained no definition of "household" and there had been no error in the Council's decision-making as to whom it would treat as members of the claimant's household.

___________

R(MM) v Lewisham LBC [2009] EWHC 416 (Admin)

Ms M (then 17) fled her home in fear of domestic violence and took shelter at a women's refuge. After she had been there for 4 months, a refuge worker telephoned Social Services to make a referral because Ms M was in need of support.

On the basis of that call, the Council decided that she was not a 'child in need' because any support needs she might have could be met by a local voluntary organisation.

On a claim for judicial review, the High Court quashed that decision and held that, had an adequate assessment been made under the Children Act 1989, no reasonable council could have failed to have been satisfied that Ms M was a child in need owed the section 20 accommodation duty.

The Court granted a declaration that she should have been accommodated for 13 weeks before turning 18 and was, therefore, entitled to further assistance as a 'former relevant child'.

___________

R(Ahmad) v Newham LBC [2009] UKHL 14

The Council operated a choice-based letting scheme with three bands. The largest band (from which most lettings were made) contained applicants who were entitled to a "reasonable preference" under one or more of the categories in Housing Act 1996 section 167(2).

When bids from members of that band were received for an available property, they were ranked by registration date. The property would be allocated to the bidder with the oldest date.

The Council also had a "direct let" scheme for decants and other urgent cases.

Mr A had multiple housing needs spanning a number of reasonable preference categories and several of his household had medical needs. His application for "direct let" status was unsuccessful and he remained in the CBL main-band, queuing by date.

He claimed that the scheme was irrational because it grouped the vast bulk of applicants into a single band, distinguishing between them by registration date rather than by housing need.

The House of Lords dismissed his claim. It held that the language of the 1996 Act, as substituted by Homelessness Act 2002, gave local housing authorities greater flexibility than before. It no longer required that those in the reasonable preference categories who were in the greatest need should be housed first. Waiting time was a relevant factor in determining who should be allocated social housing.

Newham's scheme could not be described as irrational for giving that factor pre-eminence. Cases of the most serious nature were still capable of being addressed by the "direct let" arrangements.

___________

R(M) v Hackney LBC [2009] EWHC Admin, [2009] All ER (D) 146 (Mar)

The claimant was an elderly disabled council tenant. He applied for a transfer from his present home to a ground floor flat.

He was awarded medical priority and offered a ground floor flat. When he realised that the flat offered was near a school playground, he alerted the Council to the fact that he was the subject of a sexual offences prevention order. He had several earlier convictions for sexual offences against children.

The Council withdrew the offer and decided that the claimant was not eligible for consideration under its allocation scheme at all.

The claimant sought a judicial review, contending that the Council had not given sufficient reasons and had not acted consistently with its own allocation scheme.

The High Court dismissed the claim. The judge held that sufficient reasons had been given and the Council had not acted unreasonably.

Housing Monthly Diary

Enter your email address to receive email alerts when there are updates to our website. We will not share your email with others or use it for any other purpose.

Reporting on Feb-Apr 2009

Quick Links

Access to current journals

username: password:

Archive Issues Reporting Periods

-->