EM, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Havering

25 November 2024

[2024] EWHC 3016 (Admin)

High Court

A woman who was a victim of domestic abuse was refused social housing because she hadn't lived in the area long enough. The court said the rules allowed for exceptions in cases like hers, as she needed to move for her health and safety, and because her current home was too big for her. The council's decision was overturned.

Key Facts

•Ms. EM (Claimant) challenged the London Borough of Havering's (Defendant) refusal to add her to its social housing register.
•The Defendant refused due to the Claimant not meeting the Scheme's residence requirements.
•The Claimant is a domestic abuse victim seeking housing near her sister.
•The Claimant argued the Scheme unlawfully discriminated against her under the Equality Act 2010 and/or the ECHR.
•The Claimant's current housing is unsuitable due to its size, cost, and association with past abuse.
•An expert psychologist supported the Claimant's need to move for medical and welfare reasons.
•The Defendant failed to file Detailed Grounds within the court-ordered timeframe.
•The Court granted the Defendant permission to be heard, limited to its Summary Grounds.

Legal Principles

Interpretation of housing allocation schemes should be practical and common sense, not legalistic.

R (Flores) v Southwark LBC [2020] EWCA Civ 1697

Local housing authorities must have a scheme for allocating housing accommodation, giving reasonable preference to specified groups (including those needing to move on medical or welfare grounds).

Housing Act 1996, s. 166A

Local authorities should prioritize applicants demonstrating a close association with their local area.

Statutory guidance under s.169 of the 1996 Act, Providing social housing for local people

Guidance encourages applying medical and welfare reasonable preference to domestic abuse victims.

Guidance under s. 169 of the 1996 Act: Improving access to social housing for victims of domestic abuse

Outcomes

The Claimant's claim succeeded on the first ground of challenge.

The Court found the Claimant met exceptions (b) and (c) in the Scheme's residence requirements, namely under-occupying her current social housing and needing to move on medical/welfare grounds.

Declaratory relief granted.

The Court declared the Claimant fell within exceptions 2.3(ii)(b) and 2.3(ii)(c) of the Scheme; the Defendant's decision was wrong in law.

EM, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Havering

Key Facts

Legal Principles

Outcomes

Similar Cases

BN, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hounslow

AK, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council

RR, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Enfield

Sabhya Bano, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Waltham Forest

Carly Jayne Willott, R (on the application of) v Eastbourne Borough Council