Woolfe, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Islington

A housing allocation scheme may impose a bidding threshold on registered applicants who are entitled to reasonable preference. The threshold is a procedural device and does not, of itself, remove the statutory preference already reflected in the allocation of points. The court will not substitute its view for the authority’s assessment of the appropriate points or threshold, provided the scheme is lawful and kept under review.

A local authority may comply with its duty to have regard to children’s welfare through the design and application of welfare provisions within its allocation scheme. A scheme providing New Generation points for residence during a continuous block of at least three years within the last five years does not require the applicant to remain living with the parent at the date of decision.

The claimant, a homeless young mother, challenged Islington’s housing allocation scheme. She argued that a 120-point threshold, which prevented applicants below that level from bidding for properties, breached the reasonable-preference duty under Housing Act 1996, section 166A(3), and the duty concerning children’s welfare under Children Act 2004, section 11.

She also challenged the refusal to award 90 New Generation points. The refusal was based partly on the view that she was no longer living with her mother after being placed in temporary accommodation. The central issues were whether the bidding threshold was unlawful and how the residence criteria in the New Generation scheme should be construed.

1. Points threshold. The claim based on section 166A(3) of the Housing Act 1996 failed. The authority had registered the claimant, awarded points including points for homelessness, and thereby gave her a statutory preference. The requirement to give reasonable preference did not require every eligible applicant to be allowed to bid or to have a realistic prospect of obtaining accommodation.
2. The threshold concerned the procedure for allocating accommodation under section 166A(1), rather than the assessment of priorities under section 166A(3). It was lawful for the authority to limit bidding to applicants with a realistic chance of being rehoused, having regard to the substantial excess of demand over supply. The level of the threshold was a matter for the authority’s judgment, not the court’s.
3. Children’s welfare. The claim under section 11 of the Children Act 2004 also failed. The authority had considered children’s welfare when framing the scheme, operated joint working arrangements with children’s services, and considered the claimant’s daughter when deciding whether welfare points should be awarded. The welfare provisions were capable of safeguarding and promoting children’s welfare consistently with a bidding threshold.
4. New Generation points. The authority had misapplied its own policy. The words requiring an applicant to have lived continuously as an agreed household member for at least three out of the last five years required a continuous three-year block within that period. They did not require the applicant to be living with the parent at the date of application or decision. Shorter periods could not be aggregated.
5. The decision refusing New Generation points was quashed and remitted for reconsideration. Islington could investigate whether the claimant satisfied the remaining criteria, including the required period of residence. The remainder of the claim was dismissed. There was no order as to costs.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. Applications by both parties for permission to appeal were refused, with time to renew extended to 21 days after receipt of the approved transcript.