Domestic abuse victim wins legal challenge over refusal by council to add her to social housing register

Jonathan Glasson KC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, said claimant EM clearly came within exceptions in Havering’s policy to the normal rule that six years continuous residence in the borough was required before anyone could be added to its social housing register.

Mr Glasson issued a declaration that EM fell within the exceptions to the six-year rule and that Havering’s decision to the country was “accordingly wrong in law”.

The court heard EM is a victim of domestic abuse and wanted to leave her home in another London borough - where she under occupies a four-bedroom housing association property - and move to Havering to be near relations and away from her violent ex-husband.

She argued she came within a category of those in exceptional need for whom the six-year rule could be waived.

Alternatively, she argued that if she did not come within the exceptions, the scheme was unlawfully discriminatory against her under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 and/or under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights read together with Article 8 ECHR.

Mr Glasson said that since he held EM did come within certain exceptions there was no need for him to decide the latter ground.

---

Related Articles

Resident sends bailiffs into head office of major social landlord over unpaid compensation

Council to improve handling of Disabled Facilities Grant applications after Ombudsman investigation found “significant backlog” of cases

Shelter urges Government to name implementation date for Renters’ Rights Bill as data shows nearly 1,000 no-fault evictions every month

Failures by social landlord left mother unable to close windows for three years despite risk to young children: Housing Ombudsman

Woman given suspended sentence after altering documents in bid to gain social tenancy

---

EM put forward four issues under her first ground, all of which asked whether the exceptions concerned affected only those already living in Havering.

These were whether she qualified for inclusion on Havering’s housing register because she is: under-occupying her current social housing tenancy; needs to move on medical or welfare grounds; homeless; or in exceptional need?

On the under-occupation issue, EM argued Havering’s implied reading that this only applied to borough residents was wrong because it did not explicitly say this while this distinction was stated clearly in other policies.

Mr Glasson said: “In my judgment, a plain reading of the scheme leads to the conclusion that the claimant comes within this exception.”

On the issue of medical or welfare grounds Havering “once again…relied on the argument that the exceptions were to be interpreted consistently with a reading of the priority banding which did not permit Band 3 to be read as a residual category”, but Mr Glasson again accepted EM’s argument.

He said there was no dispute that, prima facie, EM needed to move on medical or welfare grounds.

For the third ground concerning homelessness, Mr Glasson noted Havering “accepts that the evidence before the court indicates that the claimant is homeless within the meaning of Part 7 of the 1996 Act.

“Once again however the defendant argues that the exception is confined to individuals who are homeless within the meaning of Part 7 of the 1996 Act and living in Havering.

“In my judgment the claimant's interpretation of this exception is to be preferred [as] the scheme encompasses those who are homeless within the meaning of Part 7 of the 1996 Act but who do not meet the six-year residence requirement”.

The deputy judge added: “The plain terms of the exception contain no qualification that the applicant must reside in Havering in accommodation that is not reasonable for them to occupy. A common sense reading does not require words to be read in to the scheme as contended for by the defendant.”

Mark Smulian