![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Macleod, R (on the application of) v The Governors of the Peabody Trust [2016] EWHC 737 (Admin) (08 April 2016) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/737.html Cite as: [2016] EWHC 737 (Admin) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
The Queen on the Application of ![]() | Claimant |
|
- ![]() ![]() |
||
The Governors of the ![]() ![]() |
Defendant |
____________________
Mr Jon Holbrook (instructed by Peabody)
for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 26 January 2016
____________________
VERSION
OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice William Davis:
Introduction
Factual background
"We are unable to process your application because you are currently a non-social housing tenant. On this basis there is no right to a mutual exchange. This does not affect your rights to transfer within the former Crown Estate portfolio."
Mr MacLean responded by e-mail. He pointed out that he had discussed the issue with Peabody
Direct (which I take to be some kind of helpline operated by
Peabody)
prior to considering an exchange and at each stage of the process and that he had not at any point been told that he was not eligible for an exchange. In his e-mail he also stated that he suffered from acute mental illness though he did not give any specifics thereof.
"I can confirm that your application was declined due to your tenancy not being subject to rent standard, for example, social rent and therefore you would only be able to swap with a tenant with a similar tenancy, for example on the same or other London based Regency Estate (a reference to the CEC portfolio)."
Mr Macleod
was offered £200 by way of compensation to cover his expenses
in travelling to Scotland and the like.
The legal framework
Discussion
Peabody
purchased the properties from CEC using funds raised on the open market, not
via
any public subsidy or grant.
- Although the properties were not let a full market rent, it is not clear that they were pure social housing. The key workers for whom the property was reserved included those with a family income of up to £60,000 per annum. The commercial housing market in London adequately serves the needs of those workers.
Very
many workers in occupations not covered by the nomination agreement relating to the CEC properties are served by the open market. The provision of below market rent properties for such workers does not fall within the definition of social housing in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008: see Section 69.
- Unlike the RSL in Weaver
Peabody
had no allocation relationship with any local authority. It was not acting in close harmony with a local authority to assist the local authority to fulfil its statutory duty.
- Rents for the properties transferred from CEC are not subject to the same level of statutory regulation as social housing in general.
- Because CEC was and is a public body,
Peabody
was in the same position as any RSL which takes a large-scale transfer of public housing stock.
This proposition depends upon a conclusion that CEC was a public body and that the properties of which MrMacleod's
was one consisted of public housing stock. For the reasons already given I am not satisfied that those factors are made out on the evidence before me.
Peabody
is regulated as a private registered provider of social housing and has statutory powers over and above the powers available to private landlords.
This proposition would carry significant weight in relation toPeabody's
general stock. The properties transferred from CEC fall into a different category.
Peabody
receives state subsidy by way of grants and to separate the properties transferred from CEC is to ignore the realities of the situation.
Such separation is not unrealistic for the reasons already given. Lord Justice Elias in Weaver did not reject the notion of different considerations applying to different parts of the housing stock let by a provider.
Peabody
has charitable status.
This is a matter to take into account but it does not of itself signify thatPeabody
is a public body in relation to the properties transferred from CEC.
- The non-assignment clause to which Mr
Macleod
was subject simply does not permit a mutual exchange. It is to be compared with the clause under consideration in Gentoo.
- The nominations agreement between CEC and
Peabody
limited
Peabody's
power to let a property to someone other than a tenant nominated in accordance with the agreement.
Peabody
could do so only in relation to what was defined as a true
void.
Whether a true
void
would have been created by a mutual exchange at best is doubtful. It would have been "a tenant of another unit" moving to the property.