Court Denies Claimant's Request for Judicial Review in MJ v London Borough of Islington Housing Allocation Case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 159 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of MJ, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Islington provides a comprehensive example of how the UK’s legal system addresses issues related to housing allocation schemes and local authority duties under various legal frameworks. It involves a dispute where the Claimant sought redress from the Defendant for alleged failures to secure adequate housing, accommodating the special needs of her daughter. This article dissects the legal principles applied within this case and links them to the pertinent elements of the case summary.

Key Facts

In the case at hand, the Claimant, represented by her legal counsel, challenges the Defendant’s purported failure to take proactive steps in rehousing MJ and her family, citing inadequacies in the current accommodation arrangement. The family’s situation is complicated due to MJ’s daughter, “A,” who has severe autism and learning difficulties, leading to unique housing requirements. Over the years, the Claimant has engaged with the Defendant, seeking alternative housing that meets the specific needs of her family.

Several legal principles and frameworks are central to the deliberations in this case:

Part VI of the Housing Act 1996

Both parties agree that Part VI does not impose a freestanding duty upon the Defendant to house the applicant but does set out the manner in which housing should be allocated. On these grounds, the court must determine whether the Defendant’s actions or inactions have run contrary to these provisions.

Housing Allocation Scheme and Protocol

The details of Islington’s Housing Allocation Scheme and a non-statutory Protocol form a crucial backdrop to this case. Points awarded under categories within these frameworks govern a claimant’s priority within the housing system. The Claimant was allocated a “supported choice” status after being recognized as a high-risk case, theoretically fast-tracking the allocation of suitable housing, albeit contingent on availability within the housing stock.

Children Act 1989 (Section 11)

The consideration of the Children Act 1989 centers on whether the Defendant has been effective in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children through its housing allocation protocols. The court examines whether these have been adhered to and addresses the relevance of the Act now that the dependent child, A, has reached the age of majority.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

The consideration of A’s Article 8 rights to respect for private and family life is pivotal to the Claimant’s argument. The Claimant references R (Bernard) v Enfield LBC [2003] H.L.R. 4 to draw parallels between the cases. The court, however, weighs the practical steps taken by the Defendant to safeguard A’s Article 8 rights against the Claimant’s assertion of rights infringement.

Outcomes

The Deputy Judge of the High Court ruled against the Claimant, denying permission for judicial review. Key findings include:

  • There was no arguable breach of the Housing Scheme or the Protocol, as the Defendant did not fail to meet any specific provision’s requirements concerning the timely offering of suitable housing.
  • Since A is now over 18, provisions relating to children under the Children Act 1989 and the Protocol no longer apply directly to her. However, the court ensured the continued application of supported choice benefits.
  • Article 8 rights have not been arguably breached due to the proactive steps taken by the Defendant to address housing concerns via a risk management plan and granting sufficient points to the Claimant for bidding on properties.

Conclusion

The court’s decision in MJ v London Borough of Islington illustrates the complexities of housing allocation within the framework of local government duties and the rights of individuals under both national and Human Rights laws. The ruling showcases judicial deference to a local authority’s discretion in the allocation of scarce housing resources, balanced against the legal requirement to protect and promote the welfare of all children and families within its jurisdiction. Despite the Defendant’s recognition of the Claimant’s family as high-risk, the lack of availability in suitable housing stock and the absence of a legal duty to secure such housing within a set timeframe underpinned the court’s decision to refuse the judicial review application.