We don’t need this scaremongering

No one should be surprised at the High Court’s decision in McIntyre v Gentoo Group Ltd as Weaver v London & Quadrant Housing Trust in 2009 did not turn solely on whether a registered provider was carrying out a statutory function on behalf of a local authority. Rather, that was the basis of Donoghue v Poplar HARCA way back in the Court of Appeal in 2001.

In Weaver, it was held that allocation, management and termination of social housing tenancies were likely to be ‘public functions’ and hence, amenable to a human rights challenge and/or judicial review.

Further, the McIntyre v Gentoo Housing Group Ltd case very much turned on the fact that the McIntyre’s used to be local authority tenants (Sunderland Council) prior to transfer in 2001 and that his arrears from a previous council tenancy in his name alone had been the reason for the refusal of their mutual exchange request (management of social housing).

As Keith Jenkins from Winckworth Sherwood wrote in the legal article No through road (Inside Housing, 20 November 2009): ‘any well-conducted housing association that keeps a proper record of what it does in relation to actual and potential tenants, and why it does it, is unlikely to face any difficulty.’

Perhaps readers might wish to read the actual transcript of McIntyre v Gentoo Housing Group Ltd and ask themselves why this registered provider did not behave reasonably.

Finally, again as Keith Jenkins from Winckworth Sherwood pointed out in November 2009, being amendable to a human rights challenge and/or judicial review will in no way lead to the inevitable conclusion that the money borrowed by registered providers will be added to the public debt. This is irresponsible spin doctor scaremongering that should particularly not be entertained with an imminent election.

Richard Paris, Housing Law Education, Surbiton

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment