Adow, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham

A local housing authority must operate its allocation scheme as adopted, including provisions identifying who is to make allocation decisions. Where the scheme requires medical applications to be assessed by a specified officer, the authority cannot lawfully outsource that decision to an external assessor without first amending the scheme. Judicial review relief remains discretionary, but a declaration is appropriate where unlawfulness is established and the authority has failed to acknowledge or address the breach candidly and promptly.

Farhiya Adow sought judicial review of the London Borough of Newham’s refusal to award medical priority in her housing application. She also sought a declaration that the authority could not delegate medical assessments under its allocation policy to Dr Keen or another third party.

The authority’s scheme stated that every medical application was to be assessed by the medical assessment officer in its quality and review team. In practice, the assessment had been outsourced to Dr Keen. The claimant’s immediate housing need later subsided after she obtained better accommodation, but she maintained that a declaration was appropriate. The authority accepted that its practice did not comply with the Housing Act 1996 and its policy, while arguing that the court should refuse a remedy.

1. Claim allowed. The court made an appropriate declaration, with the precise wording to be drafted by counsel, and ordered the defendant to pay the claimant’s costs on the standard basis.
2. Section 167 of the Housing Act 1996 required the authority to have and comply with an allocation scheme governing the procedure for allocating housing accommodation. That procedure included the persons or descriptions of persons by whom decisions were to be taken. Housing accommodation could not be allocated except in accordance with the scheme.
3. Newham’s scheme provided that every medical application was to be assessed on its merits by the medical assessment officer in the quality and review team. The authority’s practice of outsourcing medical assessments to Dr Keen was therefore inconsistent with both the statutory framework and the authority’s own policy. The court described the legal position as clear and the authority as having failed to comply with it.
4. Although judicial review relief is discretionary, the court declined to refuse a declaration merely because the claimant’s immediate housing needs had been resolved, or because the authority said that remedial policy changes were being considered. The authority’s failure to acknowledge service, respond properly to the permission order, and make a frank admission until shortly before the hearing materially affected the exercise of discretion.
5. The declaration was justified to clarify the legal position and mark the authority’s breach of its statutory and policy obligations.