Judge rejects challenge to decision by council that claimant was not qualified for allocation of housing

A claimant has failed in a judicial review challenge to a decision by the London Borough of Camden that he was not qualified for the allocation of housing.

In Kuznetsov, R (On the Application Of) v The London Borough of Camden [2019] EWHC 1154 (Admin) the claimant had been given permission to bring the challenge on one ground only: whether section 2.2.5 of Camden’s Housing Allocation Scheme was properly applied by the council in refusing him entry to its housing register.

Section 2.2 of Camden's allocation scheme sets out those who do not qualify for entry onto the housing register, including the following:

"2.2.5 You or anyone included in your application have a high level of household savings or assets, including if:

• you own or have recently owned a property or an interest in a property in the UK or elsewhere. If you recently owned a home, you will be asked for evidence of the sale and details of any capital gained from the sale to help decide whether you qualify for the housing register, or
• you have financial assets, such as savings, above £32,000…You will…not be subject to this test if you are awarded points or are entitled to a direct offer for under-occupation, regeneration or redevelopment. The Council will exempt some people where it is in the Council's legal, financial or strategic interest to do so."

Upper Tribunal Judge Markus QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, found that “whatever else might be said about the application of either of the two examples to the Claimant's case, there can be no doubt that, on the evidence, the Defendant was entitled to conclude that the Claimant had a ‘high level of household savings or assets’.”

The judge said the claimant had been entitled to compensation pursuant to the compulsory purchase of his flat on the Bacton Low Rise Estate, for which the council had in 2012 approved a redevelopment strategy. The claimant was evicted in October 2017 and the property demolished in January 2018. Following the eviction the claimant applied to go on Camden's housing register.

Judge Markus QC said: “The value of the flat had been assessed by estate agents as £620,000, the Defendant had offered £654,000 and, on the Claimant's case, he was entitled to over £900,000. The Claimant had rejected the offer of payment and an offer of an interim payment while the dispute as to the amount was ongoing.

“The Claimant could not reasonably contend that he did not have money which had been offered and which he had refused to accept, in particular in this case where it remained available to him. [Counsel for Mr Kuznetzov] said that the Defendant did not know whether the property had been encumbered with a mortgage or otherwise, but the Claimant had never contended that this was the case and the Defendant was entitled to proceed on the basis that the money was the Claimant's. It was wholly reasonable for the Defendant to treat him as having a high level of assets.”

The judge said that the council had also found evidence that the Claimant held company shares to a very high value. “The Defendant had asked the Claimant to provide information to support his contention that the shares were not of that value or could not be liquidated, but the Claimant had failed to do so. All that the Defendant had was the Claimant's assertion that the shares were held in a private company and so could not be sold.”

The judge said there was no reason why the Defendant should have accepted that assertion as accurate. “The Claimant had been provided with ample opportunity to support his claim as to their value. He failed to do so. For the purpose of this hearing, the Claimant has provided unaudited accounts showing shareholder funds in each of the three companies of very much lower amounts than that identified by the Defendant, but these accounts are for a different year to that relied on by the Defendant and there has been no explanation why the Claimant did not produce the accounts for the previous year, nor any explanation for the asserted decrease in value. In any event, that information was not before the Defendant at the time of its decisions.”

Judge Markus QC said: “The Defendant's conclusion that he had a ‘high level of household savings or assets’ was a reasonable one. Further, even if the two examples under paragraph 2.2.5 were exclusive of its application, it was clear that either or both applied in this case.”

Finally, the exclusions from the exemption which applied in a case of regeneration or redevelopment were not capable of applying to the Claimant, he added.

The judge rejected [counsel for Mr Kuznetsov’s] submission that the Claimant was a "Council tenant" and so within the scope of paragraph 4.5.6, of the allocation scheme, which provided for 600 points to be awarded for regeneration or redevelopment, if: "you are a Camden Council tenant and are required to leave your property because it has been identified for regeneration under a major redevelopment project…"

Judge Markus QC said: “The allocation scheme is a policy which is to be understood in context. The Claimant had been a council tenant. He had exercised the right to buy and purchased a lease. Although, as a matter of law, he was a ‘tenant’, he was not a ‘council tenant’.

“The latter is a term which is readily understood by members of the public, local authorities and housing lawyers, and broadly refers to a tenant holding under one of the forms of tenancy provided for in the Housing Acts. As a matter of ordinary usage, the term does not include those who have purchased a lease under the right to buy.”