Secure tenants granted permission to challenge Lambeth Council heating and hot water charges
Local Government, Judicial Review & Public Law, Housing
On 15 June 2026, the Administrative Court granted two secure tenants, Kirsty Oliveira and Aida Haile, permission to bring a judicial review challenge against Lambeth Council concerning the lawfulness of heating and hot water charges levied through the Council’s district heat network.
Granting permission, Richard Clayton KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, held that the claim raises “wider issues and points of law of general public importance”.
Lambeth’s charging regime
The case concerns Lambeth Council’s district heat network, which supplies heating and hot water to residents on a number of estates. The costs of the network are passed on to secure tenants and leaseholders through service charges.
The Council’s tenancy agreement contains a term purporting to permit the variation of heating and hot water service charges annually. The claim challenges the Council’s reliance on that term after charges increased substantially over the course of the tenancy, including an increase of approximately 300% in 2022/2023 for Kirsty and 150% for Aida.
As a result of those increases, Kirsty faced a monthly shortfall of around £350 because welfare benefits do not cover heating and hot water service charges. Aida was left with a shortfall of £300 per month. This shortfall represents more than half of the Universal Credit standard allowance, making it unaffordable.
The ‘heat network trap’ for social housing tenants
The claim raises wider concerns about the position of secure tenants connected to district heat networks.
Secure tenants are commonly allocated social housing through homelessness duties under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 or the housing register under Part 6. This means that often have little practical choice about the accommodation they are offered.
In both Kirsty and Aida’s cases, they were not told in advance of accepting an offer of accommodation that their service charges might increase to the extent that they have. Nor is the methodology for calculating the increases clearly publicised.
The Council has also not installed metres or cost allocators in its properties, which it is argued that there was a legal obligation to do. This means tenants cannot take steps to reduce the costs of the service charges.
Additionally, once housed, many face significant barriers to moving elsewhere because of the cost of private rent of sector accommodation and the risk of being found intentionally homeless if they leave their social housing and seek homeless assistance.
This situation creates the “heat network trap”, where tenants are exposed to escalating heating costs that they cannot avoid and which are not covered by the benefits system.
The excessive service charges have led some tenants into arrears, exposing them to the risk of eviction.
The issues raised by these proceedings have previously attracted national media attention, including coverage by the BBC, the Guardian and Inside Housing.
The legal grounds and wider significance
Jeremy Ogilvie-Harris was instructed by Helen Mowatt, Isabella Mulholland and Sam Tippet of Public Interest Law Centre to bring a judicial review claim challenging this state of affairs. Jeremy is led by Tom Hickman KC of Blackstone Chambers.
The claim is premised on two grounds:
- Ground 1: The term of the tenancy agreement that the Council has invoked to raise the level of service charges is onerous and unfair and in breach of section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 or regulation 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.
- Ground 2: The levy of service charges and the continuing demand for payment of accrued rent liabilities, together with other accompanying detriments arising from such liabilities is contrary to Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights
Jeremy commented:
“These cases raise important questions about how the transition to more sustainable forms of heating can be delivered justly. The claimant argues that vulnerable social housing tenants should not be left facing heating charges that are unaffordable to them and which they have little practical ability to avoid or reduce.”
Sam Tippet of Public Interest Law Centre commented:
“It is estimated that 900,000 households are on heat networks, including 1 in 12 in social housing. Without proper price protection, working class tenants are being burdened with exorbitant costs and pushed into unmanageable debts.”
Aida commented:
“When the charges for my heating and hot water more than quadrupled in 2023, I was in complete shock. I inevitably fell behind on my payments, and I received eviction notices which really affected my mental health. I was stressed, not eating or sleeping, and I became depressed.”
Kirsty commented:
“When Lambeth put our heating and hot water charges up by over 350% in one year, I genuinely thought they’d got it wrong. I hardly use the heating, so I just couldn’t understand how the charges could be so high. To then be threatened with losing my home because I couldn’t afford to pay was shocking.”
The case is due to be listed for a substantive hearing in which the Administrative Court will determine whether the heating and hot water charges are lawful.
Jeremy Ogilvie-Harris is a human rights and public law barrister specialising in housing, homelessness, benefits, planning and environment, energy, protest and information and data protection. He has experience of representing individuals, public authorities and companies in judicial review proceedings.
