High Court rules on housing allocation dispute

Introduction

The High Court recently addressed a housing allocation dispute involving the claimant, MV, against the London Borough of Lewisham, with Pinnacle Group as an interested party. The case centred on the claimant's request for emergency housing priority due to alleged anti-social behaviour from neighbouring tenants.

Background

The claimant, representing himself, sought judicial review of the London Borough of Lewisham's decision to place him in a lower housing priority band. He contended that the ongoing anti-social behaviour from tenants in a neighbouring flat warranted emergency rehousing for himself, his partner, and their daughter. The defendant, represented by solicitor Annabel Nuttall Heath, initially placed the claimant in Band 3 under its housing allocation policy, which was contested by the claimant.

Judicial Review Application

Permission for judicial review was granted on the grounds of the defendant's alleged failure to properly apply its housing allocation policy, specifically regarding the claimant's placement in Band 1. The court found procedural errors in the application of the 2017 policy instead of the updated 2022 policy, leading to the decision being quashed.

Defendant's Response

The London Borough of Lewisham acknowledged the error and withdrew the initial decision, inviting the claimant to submit a fresh application under the correct policy. The court noted that the defendant's withdrawal of the decision rendered the judicial review largely academic.

Assessment of Evidence

The court examined extensive evidence from both the claimant and the defendant, including a significant email from a police officer detailing the ongoing issues and the impact on the claimant's mental health. Despite the severity of the situation, the court found no obligation for the defendant to place the claimant in Band 1 based solely on the evidence provided.

Legal Framework

The court highlighted the statutory framework under the Housing Act 1996, which mandates local authorities to have a housing allocation scheme. The court found the 2022 policy to be lawful and reasonable, emphasizing that the claimant must meet specific criteria to qualify for emergency priority.

Compensation and Costs

The claimant sought compensation for various alleged damages, but the court found no basis for such claims under the current legal framework. The court ordered the defendant to cover the claimant's costs up to the end of 2023, reflecting the point at which the defendant acknowledged the procedural error.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to updated policies and procedures in housing allocation cases. While the claimant's immediate request for emergency rehousing was not granted, the court's ruling ensures a fair reconsideration of his application under the correct policy framework.

Learn More

For insights into housing law, including landlord and tenant responsibilities and property standards, see BeCivil's guide to UK Housing Law.