Alemi, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council

A housing allocation scheme must give reasonable preference to statutorily defined priority groups in the allocation of social housing. An authority may differentiate between sub-groups by reference to features relevant to relative housing priority, provided that each sub-group retains some potential opportunity to be allocated social housing within the relevant allocation cycle. A blanket time bar which prevents an entire sub-group from bidding for social housing for 12 months removes that potential and does not constitute reasonable preference. The duty applies notwithstanding the authority’s power to discharge the main homelessness duty through a private rented sector offer.

The claimant was owed the main housing duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. Westminster City Council’s allocation scheme registered such applicants for social housing but prevented most of them from bidding for social housing for 12 months after acceptance. During that period the Council intended to seek suitable private rented accommodation.

The claimant sought judicial review, contending that the time bar breached the Council’s duty under section 166A(3) of the Housing Act 1996 to frame its allocation scheme so as to give reasonable preference to persons owed the main housing duty. The central issue was whether reasonable preference could lawfully be deferred in this way.

1. The claim succeeded. The relevant paragraphs of Westminster City Council’s allocation scheme were unlawful, and declarations of unlawfulness were granted.
2. Section 166A(3) of the Housing Act 1996 concerns the allocation of social housing to defined priority groups. The duty to give reasonable preference is continuing, but compliance is not assessed by taking an artificial snapshot of one day or week. An allocation scheme may distribute limited housing stock over a reasonable period where it rationally manages relative priorities.
3. The statutory discretion to give different weight to sub-groups does not permit a sub-group to be removed altogether from the potential of allocation. The relevant differentiating factors must relate to housing allocation and must leave some opportunity, however remote, to obtain social housing within the authority’s current allocation cycle.
4. The Council’s 12-month suspension was not a rational adjustment of relative priority. It applied automatically to the relevant sub-group, was unrelated to the statutory purpose of allocating social housing, and left those applicants with no reasonable preference in the current annual cycle. Registration, priority points and the recording of the acceptance date did not cure that defect.
5. The Council’s reliance on the possibility of a private rented sector offer did not alter the conclusion. The Localism Act 2011 amendments to section 193 of the Housing Act 1996 did not dilute the separate section 166A(3) obligation concerning allocation of social housing.