CA-2024-002348 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1390

When the appellant applied for housing assistance in November 2022, the respondent also placed the appellant on the housing register for persons seeking accommodation under Part VI of the 1996 Act. Housing is allocated in accordance with the respondent’s housing allocation scheme. That scheme was adopted by the respondent on 30 September 2020, following the carrying out of an equalities impact assessment for the purposes of section 149 of the 2010 Act. It was amended in July 2021.

Section 1 of the allocation scheme provided an introduction. It explained that the respondent was obliged to publish how it intended to “make sure that social housing goes to those who need it most”. It said that the scheme was designed:

"to give priority for housing to those people that are most in need of help. In looking at need, we want to ensure that we look at the lifetime needs of a household rather than just looking at their immediate situation. In developing the approach, we have two aims

* To allocate council homes according to the lifetime needs of a household

* To support residents to improve their housing situation without social housing".

Section 3 describes the properties, and the tenure and rents, included within the scheme. It explained that the majority of properties were either secure tenancies of properties provided by the respondent at a social rent or assured tenancies at an affordable rent (of up to 80% of market rent values). It noted that the respondent would work out the size of the home suitable for an applicant and his or her household. Applicants were able to bid for those (or smaller) properties but not larger ones. The allocation scheme explained how the size of a property, and the number of bedrooms required, was calculated. Paragraph 3.5.2 of the scheme provided that to “ensure that we make the best use of our housing stock, flats on the ground floor may be prioritised for those with a medical recommendation for a ground floor property”. Paragraph 3.6 provided that wheelchair-adapted properties would be reserved for tenants who required a wheelchair and offers for such properties would be made by direct offer (that is, the respondent would match a tenant to the property and make an offer without anyone bidding for that property). Applicants could bid for suitable housing and a property would be offered to the applicant with the most points or, where more than one applicant had the same number of points, to the applicant who had been longest on the waiting list.

Section 9 of the allocation scheme explained that the respondent used a points system for assessing applications for housing. Applicants were awarded points to reflect, or measure, their housing priority by their circumstances. It noted that there was a severe shortage of housing in the borough, and applicants could only bid if they had 100 points or more. The maximum number of points available under the scheme was 1000.

The system was based on an award of points. The allocation scheme identified six groups, described as reasonable preference groups, namely: (1) those who were homeless or threatened with homelessness; (2) those living in unsanitary housing; (3) those living in overcrowded housing; (4) those with a long-term health and wellbeing issue which was being affected by their current housing (applicants seeking points under this category were told that a health and wellbeing assessment based on medical evidence would need to be carried out); (5) those who needed to move to a particular location and (6) those with an emergency and exceptional need to move. The points that were to be awarded for each reasonable preference group were set out in a table in Appendix A to the allocation scheme. The rubric at the head of the table provided that:

"Applicants will qualify for the housing register if they meet one of the criteria set out below. Applicants may meet more than one of the criteria set out under each of the groups, in which case, they will be put in whichever category would award them the highest level of points. Applicants will not be awarded points from more than one of the below boxes at any one time. The maximum number of points is 1000."

In addition to the six reasonable preference groups, provision was made for certain additional preference groups. The rubric for these groups said:

“Applicants are eligible for additional points dependent on their circumstances. Additional preference points will only be awarded in addition to points gained through the Reasonable Preference categories. Health and Wellbeing Points are not available to applicants who have points awarded as being Homeless or Threatened with Homelessness”.

There were two additional preference groups, health and wellbeing and armed forces. Those with a low health and wellbeing need could be awarded 50 additional points and those with a medium need could be awarded an additional 150 points. Those who were homeless (such as the appellant) did not qualify for these additional points.

Appendix B to the allocation scheme dealt with the assessment of health and wellbeing. It defined the various categories of health and wellbeing need as follows. High was where the applicant had an urgent need to move because current living conditions (1) put the applicant's life at risk if he or she did not move; or (2) caused the applicant to be completely housebound and he or she would regain substantial independence if an alternative property were made available (including a wheelchair adapted home for a wheelchair user); or (3) put the lives of others at risk (such as, for example, an inability to self-evacuate in the event of a fire). Appendix B noted that applicants with high health and wellbeing priority did not need to meet the requirements of the reasonable preference criteria. Although not well expressed, I take that to mean that they do not need to meet the criteria for the reasonable preference groups 1 to 3 or 5 to 6, as they fall within reasonable preference group 4, applicants with a high health and wellbeing need, and qualify as such for 1000 points.

Appendix B defined medium level priority as being where the applicant's need to move was less urgent and not life threatening but their living conditions were unsuitable and, if left unresolved, their quality of life would deteriorate. It defined low priority as where the applicant's living conditions caused them difficulty in carrying out their daily activities, but this was neither life threatening nor would greater harm or progression of the illness be caused if the applicant did not move. Both medium and low priority for health and wellbeing would give an applicant additional points provided that they meet one of the other reasonable preference criteria and subject to the exclusion of those applicants who had points awarded as being homeless or threatened with homelessness.