header-logo header-logo

29 June 2015
Issue: 7659 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

12-month social housing bar "unlawful"

A central London borough unlawfully prevented a family made homeless by the housing benefit cap from registering for social housing, the High Court has held.

Ruling in Alemi v Westminster City Council [2015] EWHC 1765 (Admin), Judge Blair QC held the council’s policy of suspending homeless people from bidding for social housing in the borough for 12 months was unlawful as it breached the duty imposed by s 166A(3) of the Housing Act 1996.

Under s 166A(3), certain people have a “reasonable preference” under housing allocation schemes, including people who are “homeless” or owed a housing duty.

Ms A, who lived with her employed husband and three children was made homeless from private rented accommodation as a result of the Local Housing Allowance cap. She applied to the local authority, Westminster City Council, for help and accepted its offer of temporary accommodation in Enfield.

However, the council prevented her from bidding for social housing for 12 months, in keeping with its stated policy.

The council contended that it was legitimate to temporarily suspend the bidding rights of a “reasonable preference” group that had been securing a greater tranche of available properties than planned, so as to allow another reasonable preference group to catch up.

Delivering his judgment, however, Blair J said Part VI of the 1996 Act “does not permit the removal of a whole sub-group from a group which s 166A(3) requires be given reasonable preference in the allocation of social housing, when that sub-group is not defined by reference to differentiating features related to the allocation of housing, but applies a simple time bar to all who otherwise qualify. It is unlawful.”

Jayesh Kunwardia, partner at Hodge Jones & Allen, who acted for Ms A, says: “This landmark ruling makes it abundantly clear that homeless people have the right to bid for social housing from the time they secure a full housing duty from a local authority rather than being suspended for one year. 

“Westminster’s subtle way of registering the homeless, saying they will have points but denying them the right to bid for 12 months is now deemed unlawful.” 

 

Issue: 7659 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll