R (Gulrez) v London Borough of Redbridge [2022] EWHC 2908 (Admin)

High Court, 18 November 2022

The High Court has held that a local authority acted unlawfully in the application of its policy to determine whether the funding of a back-up stairlift for a disabled applicant was reasonable and practicable.

The claimant (“Mr Gulrez”) was severely disabled, a full-time wheelchair user and lived with his parents. His bedroom and the bathroom were on the first floor of the house, and the local authority (“London Borough of Redbridge”) had funded and installed a through-floor lift to enable access. However, the lift was temperamental and Mr Gulrez sought a disabled facilities grant from the Council to fund the installation of a new stairlift. 

London Borough of Redbridge refused, stating that it had a policy of not funding an adaptation which would operate as a back-up to an existing adaptation.

Mr Gulrez applied for a judicial review of London Borough of Redbridge’s decision.

The High Court, in allowing the application in part, held that there was no reason why a backup could not be funded under a disabled facilities grant. It found that London Borough of Redbridge’s policy of not funding back-up adaptations was unlawful, as it potentially undermined the objective in sections 23 and 24 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 of making a property as safe as reasonably practicable, given the risks if the primary item of equipment (i.e. the lift) failed. The decision needed to be reconsidered.

The ruling will be of interest to local housing authorities, as it could mean that any policy in place that undermines the objective of a disabled facilities grant to make a property as safe as reasonably practicable may be deemed unlawful following this ruling. Local housing authorities should consider their policies in light of this ruling.

A copy of the judgment is here.

R. (on the ication of TX) v Adur DC [2022] EWHC 3340

High Court, 21 December 2022

The High Court has held that a local authority’s housing allocations policy and its application to a victim of domestic abuse amounted to indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.

The claimant (“TX”) suffered from serious mental health problems. She had been a local authority tenant in a different area. After suffering domestic abuse, she fled to the defendant's (“Adur District Council”) area, where she was originally from and where her mother lived. She submitted a homelessness application to Adur District Council in order to be placed on its housing register for permanent accommodation.

Adur District Council accepted that it had a housing duty towards TX under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 and she was put on the housing register. Under its allocation policy, TX was placed in Band C (and subsequently moved down to Band D because of a housing-related debt) as she did not live in the local area, but lived in unsuitable accommodation and had a local connection, with an overriding proven need to move to the area. At the time, Adur District Council was consulting on a new allocation policy.

TX claimed that by putting her in Band C she was being indirectly discriminated against under section 23 of the Equality Act 2010.The allocation policy unlawfully discriminated against applicants who were fleeing domestic abuse and such applicants were more likely to be women.

Adur District Council argued that, on the contrary, TX’s status as a victim of domestic abuse meant that she had been preferentially treated, as the fact that she already had a tenancy in another area would otherwise have precluded her from being allowed on the housing register. TX applied for judicial review of the decision to only place her in Band C.

The Court, ruling in TX’s favour, held that Adur District Council’s reliance on TX having a tenancy in another area was misplaced. Even if she surrendered her tenancy there, under the allocation policy she would still remain limited to Bands C and D. The policy did indirectly discriminate against women fleeing to its area due to domestic abuse. Its draft replacement allocation policy did appear to recognise that there was a disadvantage to those fleeing domestic abuse from another area, as it provided that those who were homeless in such circumstances were qualified to join any band under the scheme. Also, the statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government appeared to recognise that those fleeing domestic abuse are at a disadvantage. Consequently, Adur District Council’s decision was quashed.

A copy of the judgment is here.

R. (on the application of Campbell) v Ealing LBC [2023] EWHC 10 (Admin) 

High Court, 9 January 2023

The High Court has held that there was no duty or power for a local authority to fund temporary accommodation under the Care Act 2014 if it could be provided under the Housing Act 1996.

The claimant (“Mr Campbell”) suffered from Retinitis Pigmentosa and was partially sighted. He suffered from obsessive compulsive disorder and depression, and had a need for care and support under the Care Act 2014, which requires the provision of accommodation for its effective delivery.

The London Borough of Ealing periodically assessed Mr Campbell’s care and support needs, and found that these included:

• managing and maintaining nutrition
• maintaining personal hygiene
• being appropriately clothed
• being able to use his home safely
• maintaining a habitable home environment.

These needs were being met by Mr Campbell’s partner and family and, for this reason, he declined the provision of managed care or direct payments by the London Borough of Ealing.

Mr Campbell had been living in temporary accommodation, but considered that the accommodation, which was funded by the London Borough of Ealing, was unsuitable to meet his housing needs. Subsequently, the London Borough of Ealing said that it would be withdrawing its funding for his accommodation on the basis that he had rejected a number of permanent properties that it had offered. The London Borough of Ealing argued that it did not owe Mr Campbell a duty to provide accommodation under the Care Act 2014 because his need was for housing under the Housing Act 1996, rather than care and support (which was being provided by his partner and family). Mr Campbell applied for judicial review of the decision.

The High Court, in refusing the application, held that the London Borough of Ealing had not acted unlawfully as it:

1. had no power or duty under the Care Act 2014 to meet Mr Campbell’s care and support needs by providing, or funding, accommodation under the Act
2. had no ongoing duty under the Act to provide him with, or to fund, his accommodation.

The resolution of Mr Campbell’s housing issue needed to be addressed under the Housing Act 1996.

A copy of the judgment is here.

National Community Homes CIC (formerly Larch Housing Association Ltd) v Regulator of Social Housing [2022] EWHC 3171 (Admin) 

High Court, 12 December 2022

The High Court has held that the Regulator of Social Housing had behaved rationally when deciding to de-register a non-compliant housing association.

Larch Housing Association (now called National Community Homes CIC), a private provider of housing, was also a registered provider of social housing. It had a small number of social housing units, which it leased from two landlords (“H” and “S”). After experiencing some financial difficulties, the Regulator of Social Housing decided that Larch Housing Association no longer met its Financial Viability Standard and should therefore be de-registered.

The Regulator of Social Housing issued a non-compliant regulatory notice in November 2019 and accepted a voluntary undertaking from Larch Housing Association in July 2020. When it did not comply with the undertaking, the Regulator of Social Housing commenced compulsory de-registration proceedings in October 2021. However, Larch Housing Association argued that it was close to resolving its financial problems, as it was going to:

1. hand back its units to H in return for allocating to H the right to recover the debts owed to it in relation to those properties
2. sign a loan agreement with S.

Following an investigation, the Regulator of Social Housing found that Larch Housing Association had no binding agreement with H and that there was no documentary evidence to show any loan agreement with S. Consequently, it concluded that Larch Housing Association should be removed from the register of social housing providers as it had not proved its ongoing financial viability and did not meet the registration criteria under s.112(3) of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008.112(3).

Larch Housing Association appealed.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the Regulator of Social Housing's decision to de-register Larch Housing Association had not been irrational, disproportionate, premature, or improper, as it had given the association plenty of time to address the concerns raised and comply with non-compliant regulatory notices and undertakings. The plans to resolve its immediate financial issues did not meet the Financial Viability Standard.

The decision will be of interest to registered providers, as it shows that a court may not want to intervene in similar appeals unless the Regulator of Social Housing can be shown to have acted in a disproportionate manner or behaved irrationally in its decision-making process.

A copy of the judgment is here.