High Court Rules in Favor of Applicant in Housing Allocation Backdating Discretion Case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 249 (Admin)
Judgment on

Introduction

The High Court of Justice delivered a judgment in the case of Patricia Helen Roman Montaño, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Lambeth, which centered around the issue of whether a local authority possessed discretion to backdate the registration date of an applicant’s application under a Housing Allocation Scheme, and if so, whether the local authority had unlawfully failed to consider exercising that discretion in response to the applicant’s request.

Key Facts

Mrs. Patricia Montaño, the Claimant, challenged the failure of the London Borough of Lambeth, the Defendant, to consider her request to backdate the registration date of her housing register account to a date when she initially applied, jointly with her ex-husband, to join the housing register. The Defendant denied having any discretion to backdate under its Housing Allocation Scheme 2013. The Claimant contended that, should the court find there is no discretion under the scheme, the policy would be unlawful on several grounds.

The judgment examined several legal principles, as follows:

  1. Duty to Consider Requests for Discretion: The court referred to the legal principle that a public body always has a duty to consider whether it should exercise its discretion, as established in Stovin v Wise [1996] and R (Imam) v The London Borough of Croydon [2021].

  2. Interpretation of Policy Documents: R (Flores) v Southwark LBC [2020] guided how the court should interpret policy documents, emphasizing that housing allocation schemes should be read with a common sense, practical, non-legalistic approach.

  3. Duty of Candour: The decision highlighted the duty of candour and cooperation imposed on public authorities in judicial review proceedings to provide full and accurate explanations of all the facts relevant to the issue the court must decide, as described in R (Quark Fishing Limited) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2002] and R (Citizens UK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018].

  4. Exercise of Discretion: The case discussed whether discretion is implied within the Housing Allocation Scheme and referred to R (Holley) v Hillington LBC [2016] and R (Hilsden) v Epping Forest DC [2015] to examine whether a public authority’s allocation scheme requires a residual discretion for extraordinary decisions.

Outcomes

The court concluded that the Defendant’s Housing Allocation Scheme did contain a discretion to backdate the registration date, for reasons such as awarding additional priority to homeless persons or in the context of joint tenancies, thus obliging the Defendant to consider the Claimant’s request. Consequently, the Claimant’s claim succeeded on the first ground of challenge. The court did not determine the alternate bases upon which the claim had been argued. The court ordered that the Defendant must consider the exercise of discretion within 28 days.

Conclusion

The case affirmed the legal principle that public authorities must consider the exercise of discretion when such requests are made, ensuring that housing allocation policies are not applied rigidly but with a necessary degree of flexibility. The judgment also reinforced the vital role of the duty of candour in judicial review proceedings, emphasizing that withholding relevant discretionary practices may lead to a breach of this duty. As such, the outcome serves as instructive guidance for public authorities in administering housing allocation policies and in their conduct during judicial review litigation.