Скачать или смотреть Can You Challenge a Council Housing

QUESTION exams:
“Critically discuss whether the applicant can successfully bring a claim for judicial review against the Council Housing Association (CHA), considering time limits, preliminary requirements, and possible grounds.”

ANSWER:
Judicial review (JR) is the mechanism through which courts supervise the lawfulness of public body decisions. The applicant, whose housing request was rejected by the CHA, may challenge that decision through JR, subject to strict procedural and substantive criteria.

1. Public Body and Amenability to JR
The Council Housing Association (CHA) was created by a by-law under the Fictitious Act. As such, it exercises public functions, especially when allocating housing based on statutory duties. This satisfies the requirement that the decision be public in nature (Aga Khan case contrasted, but here the CHA acts under legal authority).

2. Standing (Locus Standi)
The applicant clearly has sufficient interest in the matter (R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p National Federation of Self-Employed), as he is directly affected by the rejection of his housing application.

3. Time Limits
Under CPR Part 54.5, JR must be brought promptly and in any case within 3 months of the decision. The decision was made in mid-March, but the applicant only read the email in May.

Time runs from the date of the decision, not when the applicant became aware (R v Secretary of State ex p Ostler). Therefore, unless exceptional circumstances apply, the deadline is mid-June.

If applying late, the applicant must seek permission for an extension, showing good reason. Delay in reading the email may not suffice unless linked to incapacity or lack of access.

4. Exhaustion of Alternatives & Pre-Action Protocol
Before seeking JR, the applicant must exhaust internal remedies (if any) such as appeals within the CHA process. They must also send a letter before claim outlining the challenge and giving the CHA a chance to respond.

5. Grounds for Judicial Review
Several grounds may be argued:

Bias (Procedural Impropriety):
If the CHA member handling the case has a personal interest or known hostility toward the applicant, this breaches natural justice. A fair-minded and informed observer must not suspect bias (Porter v Magill).

Irrationality (Wednesbury unreasonableness):
If the CHA refused the application solely on the basis that the applicant could move in with parents, ignoring other serious needs, the decision may be unreasonable.

Failure to consider relevant factors / Misuse of discretion:
CHA is under a duty to consider housing need. Disregarding the applicant’s circumstances in favour of rigid rules may amount to illegality (Fewings case).

Failure to provide reasons:
If the rejection email lacks proper explanation, that may breach the duty to give reasons where the decision affects fundamental rights or livelihood (Cunningham).

Conclusion
Subject to satisfying the procedural conditions, especially the time limit, the applicant has a strong arguable case, particularly on the grounds of bias and possibly unreasonableness. If successful, the court may quash the decision and require the CHA to reconsider it lawfully.