AA, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Waltham Forest

Steps concerning the assessment, allocation or offer of social housing under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 are taken under Part 6, not Part 7. They cannot therefore be included in a personalised plan under section 189A. The fact that acceptance of a Part 6 offer may end the main homelessness duty does not alter the statutory source of those steps. A plan may, however, include steps under Part 7 to advise or assist a homeless applicant in making a Part 6 application or bidding for eligible properties. Whether it is unlawful not to include such advice or assistance depends on the facts, the evidence and the authority’s available powers.

AA, a homeless refugee owed the main housing duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996, challenged her personal housing plan. The authority considered that suitable private-sector rented accommodation could meet her needs and identified steps directed to securing such accommodation. The High Court dismissed challenges to that assessment but held that the authority had acted unreasonably by omitting steps to support AA in obtaining social housing under Part 6, and ordered a fresh plan: [2025] EWHC1625 (Admin).

The authority appealed, arguing that Part 6 allocation steps fell outside section 189A and, alternatively, that their omission was not unreasonable. The central issue was which Part 6-related steps, if any, could lawfully appear in a Part 7 personal plan.

Appeal allowed on both grounds. Section 189A must be interpreted in the context of Parts 6 and 7 of the Housing Act 1996. Section 189A(4) and (6) concern steps taken by the authority under Part 7 to secure suitable accommodation.

1. Part 6 allocation steps. Assessing a Part 6 application, deciding whether to allocate housing accommodation and making an offer of it are functions under Part 6. They must be performed in accordance with the authority’s allocation scheme under section 166A, including its system for determining priorities. Those steps cannot be included in a section 189A personal plan, and a plan cannot influence the allocation criteria or priority scheme.
2. Effect on the Part 7 duty. An accepted Part 6 offer may bring the section 193(2) duty to an end under section 193(6), but that consequence does not make allocation or offer steps Part 7 steps. Nor is it accurate to treat Part 6 allocation as a means of discharging the section 193(2) duty for the purposes of section 189A.
3. Advice and assistance. A plan may include Part 7 steps to advise or assist a homeless person in making a Part 6 application or bidding for eligible accommodation. Such steps may fall within the authority’s functions under section 179, and potentially section 166. Whether their omission is unreasonable in the public law sense depends on the facts, evidence and available powers.
4. Application to the claim. The High Court judge had treated the relevant steps as assistance leading to the allocation and offer of Part 6 accommodation. That was the wrong legal characterisation. The claim was not properly advanced as a challenge to the absence of assistance with making an application or bidding, and there was no admissible evidence showing that such assistance was needed. The authority was therefore not unreasonable in omitting steps which were incapable of inclusion in the plan.

Lord Justice Lewis gave the judgment. Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Jeremy Baker agreed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the authority’s appeal on both grounds.
• High Court, King’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Allowed the claim on the ground that the authority had unreasonably omitted steps supporting AA’s application for social housing, while dismissing the other grounds: [2025] EWHC1625 (Admin).