Carney, R (on the application of) v Bolton At Home Ltd

A housing provider may apply a policy restricting the rehousing of a person in an area where serious antisocial behaviour previously occurred, even though the person was not the former tenant but a family member whose conduct contributed to the eviction. The policy should be construed sensibly in light of its purpose. In assessing rationality, the provider may consider the applicant’s interests, the interests of affected residents and its own duty to promote sustainable communities. Historic misconduct need not be disregarded where it forms part of a serious and repeated pattern. A claim brought within the three-month period should not ordinarily be barred for delay where the claimant has used available review and pre-action procedures and no prejudice is shown.

The claimant sought judicial review of Bolton at Home Ltd’s decisions withdrawing a provisional offer of accommodation in the Breightmet area because of her previous involvement in antisocial behaviour which had contributed to her mother’s eviction from a council property there. The defendant maintained that the restriction applied only to Breightmet, not to the claimant’s housing application generally.

The claimant challenged the decisions on grounds including delay, failure to consider relevant matters, unlawful reliance on the allocation policy, irrationality and failure to give reasons. Permission was granted on paper, and the central issue was whether the defendant had lawfully and rationally applied its policy to refuse accommodation in that particular area.

1. Delay. The claim was issued at the end of the applicable three-month period. The claimant had used the defendant’s review procedure and engaged in the pre-action protocol. In the absence of clear evidence of prejudice, the claim should not be barred for delay.
2. Relevant considerations. The defendant had considered the claimant’s own conduct rather than attributing her family’s conduct to her generally. The claimant’s age when the incidents occurred, the passage of time, her changed lifestyle, her motherhood and the absence of later recorded misconduct were relevant matters. The evidence showed that the decision-makers had considered them.
3. Construction of the allocation policy. The restriction in paragraph 8.2.6 applied to the claimant. The policy was to be construed sensibly, and it was sufficient that she had been part of the family evicted because of antisocial behaviour in which her own conduct had played a part. The policy did not require that she personally had been the named tenant.
4. Supplementary conduct policy. The policy concerning a minimum period of good conduct was directed principally to whether an applicant should be accepted as a tenant, rather than whether an otherwise suitable applicant should be offered accommodation in a particular area. In any event, the evidence disclosed a regular pattern of previous poor behaviour capable of justifying an extended period.
5. Rationality. Applying the Wednesbury case principles, the decision was not one which no reasonable registered social landlord could have made. The defendant was entitled to regard the conduct as serious and not merely historic. It could consider the interests of affected residents, its own interests in managing its housing stock and the objective of creating sustainable communities. The claim was dismissed.

The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs, enforcement being restrained without further order because she held a public funding certificate. Her publicly funded costs were subject to detailed assessment.

First-instance judicial review proceedings. Permission was granted by Simon J on paper. The claim issued on 24 February 2012 and was dismissed by the High Court (Administrative Court).