Oday Yabari, R (on the application of) v The Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster
[2023] EWHC 185 (Admin)
Marcio Gomes, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
17 March 2023
[2023] EWHC 778 (Admin)
High Court
A family affected by the Grenfell Tower fire split up. The dad asked the council for a bigger house, but they said no because they don't have enough large houses to go around and felt what they offered was fair. A judge agreed with the council.
Key Facts
- •Marcio Gomes, a former Grenfell Tower resident, applied for judicial review of decisions regarding his rehousing.
- •Gomes's family (wife and three daughters) were initially allocated a four-bedroom property after the Grenfell Tower fire.
- •Following a separation, Gomes sought a three-bedroom property for himself, arguing exceptional circumstances.
- •The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) offered a two-bedroom property, citing policy limitations and housing scarcity.
- •Gomes challenged RBKC's decision on eight grounds, including breaches of statutory duties, human rights, and procedural fairness.
Legal Principles
Local housing authorities (LHAs) must allocate housing in accordance with their allocation scheme.
Housing Act 1996, section 166A(14)
LHAs have a duty to act in accordance with their housing allocation schemes, even when making exceptions.
R (Favio Ortega Flores) v Southwark London Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1697
Courts should not rewrite housing policies; they can only review for legality and reasonableness.
R (Ward) v Hillingdon LBC and R (Gullu) v Hillingdon LBC [2019] PTSR 1738; R (Ahmad) v Newham LBC [2009] PTSR 632
LHAs have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when discharging their functions.
Children Act 2004, section 11(2)(a)
Article 8 ECHR (right to respect for private and family life) may not apply to housing allocation decisions.
R(H) v Ealing LBC [2018] PTSR 541
Outcomes
Claim dismissed.
RBKC's decision was lawful and reasonable. The council acted within its discretionary powers under the housing policies and struck a fair balance between the claimant's needs and those of other residents.
Grounds 1-3 (failure to act in accordance with public statements, failure to treat as exceptional case, failure to offer adequate accommodation) rejected.
RBKC complied with the general housing scheme and exercised its discretionary powers reasonably. While acknowledging the claimant's hardship, the court did not find it unreasonable to refuse a three-bedroom property given the housing shortage.
Grounds 4-8 (breach of Children Act 2004, breach of Article 8 ECHR, failure to consider material considerations, illegality of the Grenfell Settled Home Policy, irrationality) rejected.
The court found no evidence to support these claims. RBKC considered the children's welfare, but its duty did not require providing more accommodation than was deemed reasonable in light of the policy, other residents' needs, and the housing shortage.
Similar Cases
MJ, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Islington
[2024] EWHC 159 (Admin)
ZRR, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Bexley
[2024] EWHC 2073 (Admin)
Rebecca Pickford, R (on the application of) v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 756 (Admin)
Sahra Moge v London Brough of Ealing
[2023] EWCA Civ 464