{"id":13617,"date":"2015-09-11T15:26:48","date_gmt":"2015-09-11T15:26:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.propertysurveying.co.uk\/newsletter\/?page_id=13617"},"modified":"2016-02-03T10:22:12","modified_gmt":"2016-02-03T10:22:12","slug":"family-fleeing-domestic-violence-win-judicial-review-over-ealing-council-on-five-year-residency-rule","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.propertysurveying.co.uk\/newsletter\/?page_id=13617","title":{"rendered":"Family fleeing domestic violence win judicial review over Ealing Council on five-year residency rule"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ref. HA, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Ealing\u00c2\u00a0[2015] EWHC 2375<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fleeing domestic abuse, a woman took her five children away from the London Borough of Hounslow where they had been resident and sought a new life in Ealing, the next-door borough. On 9th<\/sup> June 2014, Ealing Council accepted a full housing duty to her under S. 193 Housing Act 1996 on account of her unintentional homelessness. She was offered accommodation, which was unsuitable for a family of that size.<\/p>\n

Though she applied online to join Ealing\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Housing register, she received a pro-forma letter on 08 December 2014 \u00e2\u20ac\u201c which forms the subject of the judicial review.<\/p>\n

The letter stated that, following changes to Council policy subsequent to the Localism Act 2011, she did not appear to be eligible to join the register at that time. She did not fulfil the 5-year residency requirement, which dictates that no person shall be permitted to join the register if they have not been in residency in the borough for at least a five year period.<\/p>\n

However, S. 166A(3) of the Housing Act 1996 specifies a number of \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcreasonable preference categories\u00e2\u20ac\u2122, which were not incorporated into the council\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s policy. The Judge, Mr Justice Foss, stated that:<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u0153The defendant’s policy did not provide for the giving of reasonable preference to prescribed categories of persons as required by section 166A(3) of the Act\u00e2\u20ac\u009d <\/em><\/p>\n

In this respect, he went on to say, the policy was unlawful. Not only this, but a number of other grounds of unlawfulness were established, including:<\/p>\n