Dixon v London Borough of Wandsworth

Under Housing Act 1996, a housing authority may treat an applicant as ineligible for allocation only where it is satisfied that:

1. the applicant engaged in behaviour which would entitle the authority to a possession order;
2. the behaviour was serious enough to make the applicant unsuitable to be a tenant, requiring consideration of whether an outright order would be made; and
3. the applicant remains unsuitable by reason of that behaviour when the application is considered.

The authority must then exercise its discretion reasonably, considering all relevant circumstances and giving adequate reasons. Drug-related offending may justify ineligibility, but the individual facts must be examined carefully. The allocation decision itself did not engage Article 8 where the threatened loss of the claimant’s home arose from earlier possession proceedings.

The claimant had occupied a council flat under a joint tenancy. After his sister determined the tenancy, the council initially indicated that it would offer him a discretionary one-bedroom tenancy. Following his conviction for possessing cocaine found during a police search, and a later cannabis caution, the council withdrew that offer and decided that he was ineligible for an allocation because of unacceptable behaviour under section 160A of the Housing Act 1996.

On review, the council relied on the seriousness of the recent conviction, the circumstances of the search, the claimant’s earlier drug-related history and the limited weight to be given to his rehabilitation. The claimant sought judicial review, alleging failure to consider relevant matters, inadequate reasons, irrationality and breach of Article 8. The central issues were whether the statutory conditions were met and whether the review decision was lawful.

1. Statutory test. The claimant accepted that the circumstances established the Ground 2 possession ground and that possession would be reasonable. The remaining question was whether a notional county court judge would probably make an outright, rather than suspended or postponed, possession order. Section 160A required the authority to address that issue.
2. Individual assessment. The authorities showed that serious drug offending may ordinarily justify possession, but did not remove the need to examine the particular facts. The authority had to consider whether the behaviour was serious enough to make the applicant unsuitable to be a tenant and whether he remained unsuitable at the date of the application. Only after those matters were established could it exercise its discretion to treat him as ineligible.
3. Relevant considerations and reasons. The review decision properly considered the claimant’s long residence, tenancy history, absence of earlier serious complaints, rehabilitation efforts, proposed undertaking, the quantity of drugs, conviction and sentence, and earlier drug-related incidents. Read with the preceding correspondence, the decision letter gave adequate and intelligible reasons. The decision maker was entitled to find that the claimant’s drug misuse was longstanding and to give greater weight to the recent conviction and history than to the rehabilitation evidence.
4. Rationality. The decision maker made proper findings of fact, analysed the evidence and applied the correct statutory test. The conclusion was not Wednesbury unreasonable.
5. Article 8. The authorities concerning possession proceedings did not establish that the allocation decision itself interfered with the claimant’s home. The risk of losing the premises resulted from the earlier notice to quit and possession order, not from the challenged decision concerning future access to scarce social housing.

The claim was dismissed. The council’s decision was not unlawful.

First-instance judicial review proceedings in the High Court (Administrative Court). No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.