Bilverstone, R (On the Application Of) v Oxford City Council

Applications under Housing Act 1996 Parts VI and VII are not separate territories. A local housing authority may be required to consider both routes in relation to the same applicant. A favourable homelessness decision does not, without statutory or policy authority, preclude consideration under an exceptional-circumstances transfer scheme. The applicant is not put to an election merely because the homelessness route has succeeded. The authority must not allow its earlier failure to refer the case, or a subsequently served notice to quit, to defeat a proper consideration of the transfer application.

The claimant was a secure council tenant who had left her accommodation because of domestic violence and other risks. She sought both a transfer under the Council’s allocation arrangements and assistance under Housing Act 1996 Part VII. The Council first failed to refer her transfer case to its Exceptional Circumstances Panel, but later accepted her as unintentionally homeless and in priority need. The Panel then declined to consider her as an ongoing transfer case, treating the homelessness decision as an alternative which precluded transfer prioritisation.

The claimant sought judicial review of that Panel decision. The central issue was whether acceptance as homeless under Part VII prevented or pre-empted consideration under the Part VI transfer scheme.

1. The claim succeeded. The Exceptional Circumstances Panel’s decision was unlawful and was quashed. The case had to be reconsidered lawfully by the Panel.
2. Part VI of the Housing Act 1996 requires a local housing authority to operate an allocation scheme determining priorities. Section 167(2) requires reasonable preference to be given, among others, to persons homeless within Part VII and to persons needing to move on medical or welfare grounds. The statutory structure does not make Parts VI and VII mutually exclusive.
3. The court relied on R v Islington London Borough Council ex parte B [1998] 30 H.L.R. 706, in which it was held that the predecessors of Parts VI and VII were not separate territories and could be used together. The fact that different Council departments administered the two procedures was immaterial.
4. The claimant’s favourable Part VII decision did not preclude the Panel from considering whether her circumstances warranted exceptional transfer priority. The Council had no statutory or other legal basis for treating her as having elected between the two procedures. Nor did the fact that the notice to quit had expired, or the disputed question whether she remained a secure tenant under Housing Act 1985 section 81, remove her entitlement to have the referral properly considered.
5. The Council’s earlier failure to refer the case could not operate to the claimant’s disadvantage. The Panel was not entitled to treat the homelessness decision as pre-empting the transfer application. It was unnecessary to decide whether the timing of the homelessness decision had been deliberately arranged.
6. The claimant obtained the costs of the present proceedings, subject to appropriate assessment. No order was made concerning the costs of the earlier proceedings unless further research established that they remained extant.

The judgment describes an earlier permission application concerning referral to the Exceptional Circumstances Panel. That matter was adjourned by consent and was later recorded as withdrawn by consent on 9 May 2003. The present proceedings were a fresh judicial review claim, which succeeded.