Local housing authority — Renovation grant — Statutory power to make mandatory and discretionary grants — Housing subcommittee refusing appeal against refusal of grant — Fairness — Whether committee should have given reasons — Whether council fettered discretion by policy only to give grants where premises unfit for human habitation — High Court holding that case fell within general rule that no duty to give reasons — Application for judicial review dismissed
The applicants were the joint owners of a house in Richmond Avenue, Montpelier, Bristol. They applied to the local housing authority for a renovation grant to enable them to make improvements. Section 101 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 provided that grants were payable by a local housing authority towards the cost of works required for renovation. A grant relating to improvement or repair was a renovation grant. Under section 112 of the Act the local housing authority had to offer a mandatory grant where they determined that a dwelling-house was unfit for human habitation. Under section 115 the court also had power to make discretionary grants. Circular 6/90 provided guidance of an advisory nature as to standards of fitness for habitation in deciding whether to make such a grant. In this case the property was inspected by a local authority officer, who accepted that the premises were in need of some repair, but concluded that they were still fit for human habitation.
The applicants were informed that no offer of grant would be made since the council’s policy was only to give grants where premises were unfit for human habitation. The applicants appealed to the housing subcommittee. They obtained their own expert’s report, which stated that the premises were unfit for human habitation because of extensive dampness in one of the three bedrooms. The council again inspected the property, but maintained that the premises were so fit. They accepted that there was dampness but took account of the fact that it was only a small third bedroom and that there were only two occupants living in the house. The committee took both reports into account before refusing the applicants’ appeal. The applicants applied for judicial review of that refusal.
Held: The application was dismissed.
1. There was no general duty to give reasons for a decision, but there were classes of case where there was such a duty, ie where the subject-matter was so highly regarded by the law that fairness required that reasons at least for particular decisions be given as of right: see R v Higher Educational Funding Council, ex parte Institute of Dental Surgery [1994] 1 ALL ER 651.
2. This case did not fall outside the general rule. All facts and matters were before the subcommittee. The simple issue was whether the premises were fit for human habitation. The decision of the subcommittee was reached by directing their mind to the questions set out in both the experts’ reports. The reasons were obvious and did not need to be set out specifically. The applicants had been present at the appeal hearing and knew what had happened.
3. Moreover, although the letter to the applicants had stated that renovation grants were given only to premises unfit for human habitation, which would have been a fetter on their statutory discretion, the evidence showed that that was not in fact the council’s policy. Their resources were limited and they considered all applications individually. They were entitled to formulate a policy to deal with the difficulties arising from lack of resources. There was express provision for discretionary grants to be made.
Matthew Ryder (instructed by Bobbets Mackan of Bristol) appeared for the applicant; Peter Barrie (instructed by the solicitor to Bristol City Council) appeared for the respondents.