Key Facts
- •MJ, a tenant of the London Borough of Islington, lives in a three-bedroom maisonette with her two adult sons and 18-year-old daughter A, who has severe autism and learning difficulties.
- •The property is deemed unsafe and unsuitable for A, posing risks due to its location on the second floor and lack of a suitable bathroom.
- •MJ has repeatedly requested rehousing from Islington for over ten years.
- •Islington's Housing Allocation Scheme awards points for housing needs; MJ has 475 points, increasing her chances of securing suitable accommodation.
- •Islington implemented a Protocol for assessing environmental risks and has classified MJ's family as 'high risk'.
- •MJ was offered 'supported choice' – a choice of two suitable properties – under the Protocol.
- •A turned 18 in October 2023, rendering some parts of the legal arguments regarding children's welfare moot.
- •MJ's application for permission to apply for judicial review was initially refused and subsequently renewed.
Legal Principles
Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 does not impose a free-standing duty on local authorities to provide housing.
Housing Act 1996
Local authorities must comply with Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 in discharging their functions.
Housing Act 1996
Section 11(2) of the Children Act 1989 requires local authorities to make arrangements to safeguard and promote children's welfare but doesn't create a new duty to provide housing under Part VI of the Housing Act 1996.
Children Act 1989, Section 11(2)
Article 8 of the ECHR protects the right to respect for private and family life, but this doesn't create an automatic right to housing.
Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights
Courts must scrutinize local authorities' actions based on objective evidence and not assume conscientious conduct.
R(E) v London Borough of Islington [2017] EWHC 1440
Local authorities cannot earmark specific properties for particular residents due to fairness concerns.
R. (Begum) v Tower Hamlets [2003] HLR 8 and R. (Bell) v Lambeth [2022] HLR 45
Outcomes
Permission to apply for judicial review was refused.
The court found no arguable breach of the Housing Scheme, the Protocol, Section 11(2) of the Children Act 1989, or Article 8. The actions taken by Islington were deemed sufficient to address A's needs and comply with relevant legislation. The court also highlighted a material change in circumstances (MJ's willingness to consider a three-bedroom property) and the inherent difficulties in mandating the provision of specific housing.