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.