Osei, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham Lettings Agency

A housing authority must exercise the discretion conferred by its allocation scheme. It must consider the applicant’s relevant circumstances rather than apply a debt rule automatically. A policy may lawfully take property-related debt into account when determining housing priorities, including for applicants with emergency housing needs. The decision-maker must weigh the relevant considerations, but need not reach the conclusion that every rational decision-maker would reach. Reasons need not follow a prescribed form. Their adequacy depends on the decision and its context, including information already known to the applicant.

The claimant, a victim of serious domestic violence, sought emergency out-of-borough rehousing from the defendant local housing authority. She had emergency rehousing status but substantial former-tenant rent arrears. The authority’s allocation policy allowed debt to reduce priority and permitted discretion in exceptional circumstances.

The claimant argued that the authority had applied an unlawful fixed no-debt policy, failed to consider her domestic circumstances, and gave inadequate reasons. The authority maintained that it had considered the whole case and lawfully exercised its discretion. The central issues were whether the discretion had been fettered, whether relevant matters had been taken into account, and whether adequate reasons had been given.

1. Claim dismissed. The authority’s decision was lawful. Costs were awarded to the defendant, but enforcement was stayed pending detailed assessment of the claimant’s financial position and further order.
2. The allocation scheme lawfully permitted property-related debt to be taken into account when determining priorities. The existence of serious domestic violence and emergency rehousing status did not require the authority to disregard the debt or give the claimant priority over all other applicants.
3. The earlier documents suggested a restrictive approach and were inelegantly phrased. However, the decision under challenge had to be read in context, including the claimant’s solicitors’ letter and the information held on the housing file. The decision letter expressly recognised the emergency preference category, identified the debt as a relevant factor, and considered whether discretion should be exercised.
4. The witness evidence confirmed that the decision-maker had considered both the domestic violence and the arrears, and had weighed the circumstances and the consequences of the scheme. That was a rational exercise of discretion. A lawful decision does not require the result that every rational decision-maker would have reached.
5. Following the principle illustrated by R v London Borough of Islington ex p Aldabbagh 27 HLR 271, an authority acts unlawfully if it fetters a discretion with a rule. That principle was not breached here. The approach in Ahmad v London Borough Council of Newham [2009] UKHL 14 supported the authority’s broad discretion in housing allocation, subject to public-law limits.
6. Reasons need not be given in any particular form. Read as a whole and in context, the decision letter gave sufficient reasons. The approach in R (on Application of M) v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Hackney [2009] EWHC 2255 (Admin) supported considering the correspondence and surrounding circumstances together.

Permission for judicial review was granted on the papers on 2 July 2009. The High Court (Administrative Court) dismissed the claim.