M v Hackney LBC
Offence taken
Tenants can expect past sexual convictions to affect their housing applications, says Scott Greenwood
In the decision of M v Hackney LBC, the High Court strongly supported Hackney Council’s decision to refuse a transfer request from an applicant with a history of serious sexual offences.
The claimant (‘M’) held a secure tenancy on the first floor and was severely disabled and housebound. M applied to the local authority to be transferred to ground floor accommodation. He was awarded priority and offered a ground-floor property near a school. M had a sexual offences prevention order for previous convictions relating to serious sexual offences against children and he advised the council of the order.
Hackney arranged a public protection meeting, where partner agencies supported a revised decision to withdraw M’s transfer offer. The authority’s special needs housing manager wrote to the claimant clearly setting out the reasons behind this.
M appealed and the authority told him that because of the risk to children his appeal would be dismissed. Further, he no longer had high priority under its allocation scheme. M then issued judicial review proceedings in the High Court.
His application was rejected. The court found that Hackney had correctly followed its procedures and had clearly communicated them to the claimant. The authority was entitled to place very heavy weight on his previous convictions and the PO. On the evidence, it was concluded no reasonable housing authority would have come to a different conclusion.
This judgement supports the difficult decisions housing providers have to make when considering housing allocation of convicted sex offenders.
Scott Greenwood is a partner at Coffin Mew
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (1)
Andrea Rose | 21/10/2009 2:12 pm
As Mr. M is not severely disabled and now is effectively a prisoner in his current home this does not mean he should not be consider for a transfer based on his needs. Because he has had previous convictions and I assume given housing after serving a sentence for his crime, why can't he be rehoused because his needs have changed?
What needs to be dealt with sensitively is where he is placed. It is right that he can not be near a school and that the particular offer he was made be withdrawn. Finding suitable housing in a less risky environment is never easy.
He could technically give up his social housing tenancy and disappear into private renting. What would happen then?
Because someone has a criminal record for offences we find; me included, totally abhorrent does not mean as a society we do not carry out a duty of care to even those we consider ‘unworthy’. There is a reason housing is provided to ex-offenders, they are vulnerable and we want to stop repeated behaviour.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment