Judge criticises council’s conduct in social housing JR

Mr Justice Coppel heard the case brought by litigant LLJ, who challenged Hackney’s decision to place her in Band B of its housing allocations register.

This status would require her to bid for social housing with an estimated nine years’ wait for a suitable property. LLJ maintained she should be in Band A, for households that need emergency rehousing.

She, her husband and three children live in a third floor, one bedroom flat rented from the Peabody Trust with significant condensation and mould. One of the children is described as "severely disabled" with autism, global development delays, lack of speech and communication, increased movements and activity levels, hyperactivity, lack of danger awareness and lack of selfcare skills. LLJ said when she appealed against the council’s banding decision it failed to apply the test prescribed by the allocations policy and reached an overall irrational conclusion.

Hackney later told LLJ it accepted certain of her criticisms and - unknown to her - it had withdrawn the appeal decision.

The council therefore invited Coppel J to rule LLJ’s claim had become academic. But the judge decided he should determine it and concluded the appeal decision was unlawful.
In March Hackney sent LLJ’s representatives an ‘open offer to settle judicial review proceedings’.

This comprised withdrawal of the claim by consent, a new review and Hackney paying LLJ’s costs.

Hackney said if a court found for LLJ the outcome would be the same - a further review - and proceeding with the case was thus pointless.

Coppel J said: “The terms of the council's offer raised a number of questions. Had the council withdrawn the appeal decision or only offered to do so if the claimant agreed to withdraw the claim?

“Was the council offering to conduct a fresh appeal or – as the offer stated – a ‘review', which had a distinct status within the allocations policy? If the latter, would it be incumbent upon the claimant to demonstrate a relevant change of circumstances since the appeal decision? Did the council accept…that there was any flaw in the appeal decision (since, if not, it seemed unlikely that a fresh decision would reach a different outcome).”

Coppel J said he put these questions to Hackney’s barrister Angela Piears, who had to take instructions from the council by telephone.

The judge said what he was subsequently told did not clarify matters and: “I was not prepared to accept Ms Piears' report of her instructions without further explanation, and I directed that her instructing solicitor file a witness statement explaining when the appeal decision had been withdrawn and why it had been withdrawn and providing any contemporaneous documentary evidence of its withdrawal.”

LLJ said this later statement from Hackney avoided providing a direct answer on when the appeal decision was withdrawn. HHJ Coppel said: “[Hackney officer] Ms George did not explain, either in her witness statement or in this supplementary email, why Ms Piears had been instructed, and had conveyed to me during the hearing, that the appeal decision had already been withdrawn when it had not been.“

He added: “In my judgment, the council's conduct in offering to compromise this claim fell short of the necessary standards.

“First, it is apparent that the council did not give serious consideration to the legality of the appeal decision until early March 2026, after permission had been granted. This should have happened much sooner, when responding to the claimant's pre-action letter (on 18 June 2025) and then again when deciding to defend the claim…”

The judge said it was the council’s duty to consider its position and having decided the appeal decision faced “insurmountable difficulties" it should have withdraw it and told LLJ and the court why.

“It was most certainly not in accordance with the council's duty of candour and cooperation with the court to mount, in the detailed grounds of defences, a robust defence of a decision which it had already decided to withdraw because of having no properly arguable defence to the claim.”

HHJ Coppel said it had been “wrong for the council to expect the claimant to withdraw her claim and threaten her with costs consequences if she did not do so, without giving any indication that it accepted that the appeal decision was erroneous and on what basis”.

He said the offer to LLJ “appears to have been calculated to preserve maximum room for manoeuvre for the council's decision-maker when re-making the appeal decision”, which meant the claimant “could have had no confidence that she would not find herself back at square one, and with similar complaints, in a few months' time once the appeal decision had been re-taken”.

The judge said there had been “a number of legal flaws in the appeal decision” as essential documents were omitted from consideration and Hackney “did not adduce any evidence in support of its defence so there is no further explanation…which would suggest that the important letters had been read and taken into account…”

Hackney also applied the wrong legal test when asking whether LLJ and her family were “at high risk to life and limb” and gave reasons for its decision that were “manifestly insufficient to support the council’s] conclusion”.

HHJ Coppel found the appeal decision was irrational as it was unlawful for a Hackney officer “to prefer the dated and limited conclusions in the medical assessment over the later evidence submitted by the claimant which went directly to the relevant criterion in the allocations policy, at least without acknowledging and providing cogent reasons for rejecting the later evidence.“

He declared the appeal decision unlawful and told Hackney to reconsider the appeal.

A Hackney spokesperson said: “We sympathise with the claimant’s circumstances and will review her case again within 14 days.

“The council acknowledges the High Court’s judgment and we are considering what lessons can be learned as a result. While London’s housing crisis and the shortage of homes means that there are more than 8,000 households on our waiting list, we remain committed to ensuring all applications are handled fairly and with care.”

Mark Smulian