Social Landlords can refuse to rehouse a previous tenant where they have evicted them previously – the High Court says
When tenants of social landlords engage in anti-social behaviour the final step is often eviction. However, with housing options so scarce for so many it is often necessary for tenants to re-apply for housing with the same social landlord that just evicted them. This can cause understandable concern for social landlords who have a duty towards tenants who may be the victim of anti-social behaviour. As such, the question of when a social landlord can refuse to consider an application from a former tenant they have already evicted for anti-social behaviour is an important one, and one that has been answered by the High Court.
Ms Willott was a former tenant of Eastbourne Borough Council (“the Council”) who had been evicted for anti-social behaviour. Ms Willott had a number of vulnerabilities that she said affected her behaviour and caused her to engage in anti-social behaviour, such as autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), and alcoholism. Ms Willott had also been a victim of domestic violence. Following her eviction, Ms Willott attempted to re-apply for social housing with the Council and was refused. Ms Willott brought a case for Judicial Review of the decision on the basis that the Council’s policy of refusing applications from previous tenants who had been evicted for engaging in anti-social behaviour was unlawful. Ms Willott argued that this was particularly the case where she claimed her anti-social behaviour had been caused by her disabilities and the Council had failed to put in place reasonable adjustments.
The High Court dismissed the application. The Court found that the Council’s policy was not rigid or one-size-fits-all but that senior officials within the Council had discretion to consider applications on a case-by-case basis in exceptional circumstances. The Court found that, as a result, the rule did not infringe on Ms Willott’s right not to be discriminated against as it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim i.e. ‘ensuring that the Defendant and other social housing occupants could live free from the harassment, alarm or distress which result from anti-social behaviour’ (para 113]. The Court further determined that Ms Willott had been unable to prove that her disabilities had been the cause of her anti-social behaviour.
This case is a reminder to social landlords of the need to include discretion within policies and decision-making to ensure that unfairness does not arise. Where decision-making processes are too rigid, formulaic, or automatic they are at risk of the Court considering them unlawful. However, it also makes clear that social landlords can lawfully take steps such as refusing to allow tenants to re-apply for housing where they have a proven track record of anti-social behaviour.