Westminster’s designation of the Howard de Walden Estate as subject to selective licensing was not irrational
Housing, Local Government, Judicial Review & Public Law
A snapshot
This case concerns a selective licensing scheme implemented by Westminster City Council (“the Council”) under the Housing Act 2004. The scheme relied on an analysis of the Council’s housing stock undertaken by Metastreet Limited. The Council found that the requirements relating to anti-social behaviour (“ASB”) and poor housing conditions were met and implemented a scheme which applied to certain wards within its area.
The context
The Claimant (“HdWE”) is a large-portfolio landlord, owning 80% of the properties within its estate (“the Estate”), a contiguous 95-acre area within the Marylebone and West End wards. The Council designated an area of its district as subject to selective licensing, including those two wards (“the Designation”). HdWE was aggrieved by that designation; it sought, and was granted permission, to challenge the same by way of judicial review. The thrust of the claim was that the Council had acted irrationally in designating the wards and, more particularly, the Estate, in respect of which, it was said, the Council could not be satisfied that the housing conditions and/or the ASB conditions – contained in s.80 Housing Act 2004 and art.4 The Selective Licensing of Houses (Additional Conditions) (England) Order 2015 – were made out.
That claim has been dismissed. The Designation has been upheld.
The key takeaways
In the course of his judgment, Bright J gave the following important guidance:
- It is not irrational to use ward boundaries when determining the area, if any, which should be designated: §67. On the facts of this case “This practice was not irrational, it was a deliberate and considered choice, made for logical reasons”: §70.
- When determining whether a “significant number” of properties might be inspected, it is not irrational to make reference to nominal or relative figures; either is permitted: §72(1). Nor is it necessary that the relevant conditions are satisfied throughout the area in question, so long as they are satisfied in the area: §72(2).
- There is no proscription on the use of data modelling, rather than field testing, to determine whether any of the conditions is met: §86.
- When determining whether there is a “significant and persistent” problem caused by ASB and/or that there has been a failure among landlords to take action to combat it, it will not be irrational to rely on the fact that a number of properties has suffered more than one instance of ASB over a given period: §91.
Read the full judgment here.
Kuljit Bhogal KC and Riccardo Calzavara appeared for Westminster City Council.
