Jones v Luton Borough Council

Article 8 family life may exceptionally extend to an adult living with and dependent upon other family members. The issue turns on the particular facts, including whether there are elements of dependency beyond ordinary emotional ties.

Where a housing authority considers whether to offer accommodation outside a statutory succession right, the court will intervene only on established public law grounds. The authority may assess medical evidence, the duration of residence, the availability of alternative homelessness assistance and the acute pressure on its housing stock. A decision to offer smaller accommodation is lawful where it is reasonably open to the authority on the evidence.

The claimant challenged the decision of Luton Borough Council’s Housing Appeals and Review Panel to refuse him a new tenancy of his deceased father’s two-bedroom council property. The claimant had no statutory right of succession but had cared for his parents and lived at the property for many years. His civil partner’s brother, who had recently moved into the property and had complex diabetic health problems, was also said to be dependent on them and part of the household.

The Council offered the claimant and his partner a one-bedroom property under its non-successors allocation policy. The central issue was whether the Council had lawfully considered the brother’s alleged dependency and family life under Article 8, and whether the accommodation decision was irrational or disproportionate.

1. Claim dismissed. The Housing Appeals and Review Panel had been entitled to refuse a new tenancy of the two-bedroom property and to uphold the offer of a one-bedroom property.
2. Following Kugathas v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWCA Civ 31, as discussed and followed in Singh v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 630, an adult living with other family members may exceptionally form part of a protected family relationship under Article 8 where there is dependency involving more than normal emotional ties. The question is fact-sensitive.
3. The medical evidence did not establish that Jake Town could not live independently. The Panel was therefore entitled to conclude that his medical condition did not make him a dependent member of the claimant’s family. The risk identified by the general practitioner was principally the risk of homelessness, and the Council would be required to consider any homelessness application on its merits.
4. The short period during which Jake Town had lived at the property before the death of the tenant also entitled the Panel to conclude that he was not a member of the household. The Council’s severe shortage of two-bedroom accommodation was a relevant practical consideration.
5. The court could interfere only on well-established public law grounds. Although the decision was disappointing for the claimant and his family, it was one the Panel was entitled to make on the material before it.

Permission to apply for judicial review was initially refused on paper. Gilbart J granted permission on 22 June 2016, limited to the ground concerning the Council’s treatment of Jake Town’s position. The Administrative Court dismissed the claim.