ao link
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In
Twitter
Facebook
Linked In

You are viewing 1 of your 1 free articles

High Court quashes G15 landlord’s decision not to prioritise domestic abuse survivor for rehousing

A High Court judge has ordered a G15 landlord to rethink its decision not to prioritise the transfer of a family at risk of domestic abuse, in a case that also confirmed housing associations can be subject to judicial review over decisions on management transfers.

Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Picture: Getty
Picture: Getty
Sharelines

A judge has ordered a G15 landlord to rethink its decision not prioritise the rehousing of a family at risk of abuse, in a case that also confirmed HAs can be subject to judicial review when deciding on transfers #UKhousing

In a judgment handed down in February, the court ruled that Network Homes failed to provide a “proper and adequate substantive rationale” when it decided not to increase the priority band of a resident who wished to move her family away from her abusive ex-partner. 

The court also rejected Network Homes’ argument that it was acting as a private landlord when making its decision and should therefore not be subject to judicial review. 

However, the court did not go as far as to rule that Network Homes’ policy itself was unlawful or discriminatory. 

The case was brought by a woman, who was not named in the judgement, who has been living in a two-bedroom Network Homes property with her three children since 2018.

Last year, the claimant asked Network Homes to give her family the highest priority to bid for a housing transfer, citing a risk of ongoing domestic abuse from her ex-partner. The ex-partner did not live with the family, but knew the location of the home. 

However, Network Homes informed the claimant that it did not have any empty properties and advised her to apply to her local council as homeless.

The claimant provided Network Homes with evidence of the abuse she had suffered, including a letter from a Brent Council social worker that said the council “is extremely worried about the family living at the above-mentioned address”.

“I believe the family are no longer safe at this address therefore I recommend and support the family to a housing move so they can be safe and comfortable in their home environment so that the children can begin their recovery in a home where the address is not known to their father,” the letter concluded. 


READ MORE

Council broke law by deprioritising family for ‘deliberate’ overcrowding, high court rulesCouncil broke law by deprioritising family for ‘deliberate’ overcrowding, high court rules
Glasgow Council loses key homelessness case in Scotland’s highest courtGlasgow Council loses key homelessness case in Scotland’s highest court
London council risked plunging homeless family into debt by moving them 160 miles away, court findsLondon council risked plunging homeless family into debt by moving them 160 miles away, court finds

The letter outlined some of the abuse the claimant had suffered at the hands of her ex-partner over more than a decade, including being punched in the face and taking the children away without her permission. 

Despite this, Network Homes said it was unable to increase the family’s priority band from their current level (C). 

When challenged on this decision by the claimant’s solicitors, Network Homes said it did not hold a stock of empty properties for emergency accommodation, meaning a request for a move can only be granted in “exceptional circumstances”.

The landlord said the claimant did not fulfil this criteria, “as she was unable to provide any evidence of threats to life or limb” and “those threats were not severe or immediate”. 

The claimant submitted six grounds for judicial review, including that Network Homes’ decision was not properly reasoned, as the landlord did not adequately explain why the family should not be prioritised for a transfer. 

The claimant’s lawyers also argued that Network Homes’ policy was unlawful. They argued it required domestic abuse survivors to report their abuse to the police and make themselves homeless by approaching their local authority for emergency housing.

The judge agreed that there was an “absence of proper and adequate substantive rationale” in the decision letter that Network Homes sent the claimant when it informed her that her priority band would not be increased. 

However, the judge rejected the argument that Network’s policy was unlawful, as the policy does not contain a blanket requirement for domestic abuse survivors to report their abuse to the police.  

Network Homes also confirmed during the hearing that it did not require households to give up their tenancy before approaching a local authority for rehousing, meaning this ground for review fell away. 

Isabella Mulholland, a legal caseworker at the Public Interest Law Centre, which represented the claimant, said she often sees domestic abuse survivors being advised to make a homelessness application to their local authority rather than applying for a transfer.

She said this “places survivors in the invidious position of having to choose between staying in stable but risky accommodation or moving into precarious temporary accommodation where they risk losing their secure tenancy”.

“However, as a result of this challenge, Network Homes confirmed that there is no policy or requirement to make a homelessness application in order to apply for a transfer. Survivors will no longer be placed in this position,” she said. 

As a result of the findings, Network Homes’ decision not to prioritise the family for rehousing was quashed and the housing association was asked to reconsider its position. 

A spokesperson for Network Homes said the claimant has now been accepted into its highest category (A), but it currently has over 200 households in this category. 

The claimant’s solicitor told Inside Housing that Network Homes is yet to offer the family a transfer. 

Network Homes also argued in court that its decision and policy were not amenable to judicial review, as it was acting as a private landlord, not a public one. 

However, the judge rejected this argument, finding that Network Homes was “exercising a public function” in deciding whether to prioritise the family for a transfer. 

Ms Mulholland said: “Time and time again, housing associations argue that they are not exercising a public law function and so are not amenable to judicial review. This case shows this is not correct when it comes to transferring social tenants.

“It is another example of housing associations being held to the same standards as local authorities in their provision of social housing. This means that anyone applying for transfers, including domestic abuse survivors, can use the judicial review process to challenge housing associations if they are acting unlawfully.”

Helen Evans, chief executive of Network Homes, said: “We understand and are sorry that this has been an extremely difficult process for the resident.

“In line with the instruction of the court, we invited the resident to reapply for management transfer status, and approved them for our highest category A. Network Homes currently has over 200 households in category A. 

“We were reassured that the High Court found that our policies were lawful and had not been applied in a discriminatory manner, but nevertheless are undertaking a review of our relevant policies and our management transfer process. In line with the judge’s comments, we will revise our process to clearly explain our criteria for accepting cases into category A and set out what this means in practice. 

“We remain committed to doing what we can to prevent domestic abuse and support survivors and victims. This is constrained by the massive demand for affordable housing, particularly family-sized homes, and we cannot offer instant relief to people by adding them to a transfer list, even at the highest category of priority. We do not have the ability to offer people emergency accommodation and so, in emergencies, our advice to residents is to contact the relevant local authority, which has a statutory duty to assist in cases of domestic abuse.”

Network Homes announced in December last year that it was changing its rehousing policy to give councils nominations rights for most of its homes, instead of allocating them to residents on transfer lists. It said the transfer list gives residents “false expectations” about the length of time it will take to be rehoused. 

It is understood that this means people will only be placed on the landlord’s transfer list if there is a reasonable chance of them being rehoused within six months. 

Sign up for our tenancy management newsletter

Sign up for our tenancy management newsletter
Linked InTwitterFacebookeCard
Add New Comment
You must be logged in to comment.