Local authority housing – Decent homes standard – Consultation – Housing transfer manual – Respondent giving consent to transfer – Appellant as secure tenant seeking judicial review – Whether manual requiring respondent to take views of leaseholders into account – Whether respondent omitting evidence that rendered consent to transfer unlawful – Appeal dismissed
Local authorities were required to bring their properties up to the “decent housing standard” following the publication of the housing green paper in 2000. The first interested party, a local authority, concluded that in order to achieve the government’s target in respect of a housing estate in their area, the only viable option was to initiate a large–scale voluntary transfer (LSVT) to a housing association, the second interested party.
The proposed transfer was to be carried out pursuant to section 32 of the Housing Act 1985, which required the respondent’s consent. Such consent was also required under section 43 of the 1985 Act, in so far as the proposed transfer involved the disposal of houses belonging to the first interested party that had been let, inter alia, on secure tenancies.
Following consultation, the respondent gave consent to the transfer. However, the appellant, who was a secure tenant of a property owned by the first interested party and included in the proposed transfer, applied for judicial review of that decision. She complained that the respondent had failed to have regard to the departmental guidance for local authorities that was contained in the Housing Transfer Manual, which set out the processes for carrying out housing stock transfers. In particular, the appellant argued that the respondent had failed to take account of the views of leaseholders or to consider whether the materials circulated by the interested parties prior to the ballot had complied with the requirements set out in the manual.
The High Court held that the respondent was not under any statutory duty to take account of the views of leaseholders. Moreover, the manual did not infer that the respondent’s consent would be dependent upon the support of the leaseholders: see [2007] EWHC 771 (Admin); [2007] PLSCS 75.
The appellant appealed contending that, on the evidence, it was plain that, in deciding to grant consent, the respondent had omitted to take account of the views of leaseholders, and that such an omission had rendered her consent unlawful. Moreover, the respondent had failed to consider whether the proposed document had attained the standards of balance and neutrality.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
In all the circumstances, it was clear that the respondent had taken account of the views of the leaseholders but had resolved to give them no weight. The 1985 Act did not refer to the views of leaseholders but focussed upon the views of tenants. The rights of leaseholders remained, in principle, defined by their leases irrespective of the identity of their freeholder. Accordingly, it was not perverse or unreasonable of the respondent not to attach any weight to the clear, albeit in effect unreasoned, objections of some of the leaseholders, especially where, prior to the decision, the appellant’s solicitor had not seemed fit to argue that they deserved any weight: EC Gransden & Co Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment(1985) 54 P&CR 86 considered.
There was no ground for concluding that, before granting her consent, the respondent had failed to have regard to the adequacy of the pre-ballot consultation of tenants conducted by the council and, in particular, to the extent to which they had followed the guidance in the manual: R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte Walters (1998) 30 HLR 328 and R (on the application of Beale) v Camden London Borough Council [2004] EWHC 6 (Admin); [2004] HLR 48 considered.
The respondent had done more than enough to fulfil her functions with regard to the pre-ballot consultation and the actual balloting process. Her consent was not invalidated by her failure to require the local authority to further explore the purported complaints. All the complaints brought to the respondent’s attention had been treated with a degree of attention at least equivalent to that which the law required as a condition of the validity of her consent.
David Wolfe (instructed by Leigh Day & Co) appeared for the appellant; Jonathan Swift and Deok-Joo Rhee (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the respondent; Kelvin Rutledge and Sian Davies (instructed by the legal department of Tower Hamlets London Borough Council) appeared for the first interested party; Jane Oldham (instructed by Prince Evans) appeared for the second interested party. .
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
