Can Part 6 housing services be personalised?
Housing, Property, Public law & judicial review
Court of Appeal holds that steps to allocate Part 6 accommodation cannot be included in Personalised Housing Plan
Legal background
The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 introduced a new assessment and planning duty in s.189A of the Housing Act 1996.
In broad terms, as announced by the statutory heading, s.189A obliges local housing authorities to “assess every eligible [homeless] applicant and agree a plan”.
The duty is owed whenever the authority are satisfied that an applicant is homeless or threatened with homelessness and eligible for assistance.
After having carried out the required assessment of the applicant’s case, by sub-section (4):
“the authority must try to agree with the applicant—
(a) any steps the applicant is to be required to take for the purposes of securing that the applicant and any other relevant persons have and are able to retain suitable accommodation, and
(b) the steps the authority are to take under this Part for those purposes.”
The document recording the above steps is usually referred to as a “personalised housing plan” or “PHP”.
If the PHP cannot be agreed, the authority must in any event complete it and give the applicant a copy, pursuant to subsections (6)-(8). The PHP must be kept under review until the authority consider that they no longer owe the applicant a Part 7 duty: subsection (9).
The proceedings
AA applied to Waltham Forest as homeless. AA contended that in her particular circumstances private sector rented housing would not be suitable for her and that the only accommodation that would be suitable was social housing provided under Part 6.
Following acceptance of the main housing duty, Waltham Forest produced an updated PHP dated 22 August 2024. Under the PHP, the only steps that Waltham Forest were to take related to securing private sector rented accommodation.
AA brought a claim for judicial review challenging the PHP. At first instance, [2016] PTSR 61, the Deputy Judge rejected Waltham Forest’s general defence of suitable alternative remedy but dismissed the first three grounds of judicial review, which challenged the suitability of private sector accommodation for AA, on the facts.
However, the Deputy Judge upheld the fourth and final ground of review, on the basis that Waltham Forest unreasonably excluded from the PHP “support to apply for accommodation under Part 6”.
The appeal
Waltham Forest appealed to the Court of Appeal with permission granted by Lewison LJ.
Waltham Forest’s case was that steps to be taken by the authority to allocate accommodation under Part 6 were not steps “under this Part” within the meaning of s.189A(4) and (6), i.e. they were not steps taken under Part 7. Therefore, they were outside the scope of a PHP.
AA’s case was that steps concerning applications for, or the allocation by the authority of, Part 6 accommodation to a homeless applicant were steps taken under Part 7. As obvious steps to secure that a homeless applicant was able to have suitable accommodation, they should be included within a PHP.
The Court of Appeal, composed of Lewis, Elisabeth Laing and Jeremy Baker LJJ, unanimously allowed Waltham Forest’s appeal. Lewis LJ gave the substantive judgment. See the full judgment here.
The outcome
The Court of Appeal decided that assessing Part 6 applications, allocation decisions and offers of Part 6 accommodation were not steps taken under Part 7. Therefore, such steps to be taken by the authority in relation to a homeless applicant cannot be included in a PHP. No purpose would be served by including such steps in a PHP, since the authority are obliged to take such steps in accordance with their published housing allocation scheme. See para 56 of the judgment.
On the other hand, advice and assistance to be given to a homeless applicant (pursuant to s.179 of the Housing Act 1996) to enable them to apply and bid for properties under Part 6 can be included in a PHP. However, the decision whether to include such steps in a PHP is for the authority and will depend on the facts. See para 57 of the judgment.
(The Court of Appeal hinted that the authority might lawfully decide to provide such advice and assistance under s.166 of the Housing Act 1996 instead. Advice and assistance provided under that section would be provided under Part 6 and therefore fall outside the scope of the PHP. This sounds like a technical point but may be significant in terms of the distribution of tasks between local authority departments.)
Therefore, the Deputy Judge had been wrong to hold in substance that Waltham Forest should have included in the PHP the steps it was to take to allocate Part 6 accommodation to AA: para 67.
Even if the Deputy Judge’s judgment could be interpreted as deciding that Waltham Forest should have included in the PHP steps to advise and assist AA in making a Part 6 application, there was no evidential basis for the Judge’s conclusion that it was unreasonable in the public law sense not to include such steps in the PHP: paras 68 – 69.
Matt Hutchings KC leading Michael Mullin of Five Paper, instructed by Ruby Rahman of Waltham Forest Legal Services, represented the London Borough of Waltham Forest.
Lindsay Johnson, instructed by Rebekah Carrier of Miles & Partners LLP, represented AA.
