Gloria Elsy Rodriguez Robles, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Lewisham

1. This application for judicial review concerns Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 and the operation by the Defendant, the London Borough of Lewisham, of its scheme for the allocation of housing accommodation for those persons who are in settled but overcrowded accommodation. The Claimant is a person on Lewisham’s Housing Register. Background

2. For many years, there have been more people in Lewisham, as in many other London Boroughs, who need or want to move, than there are homes for them to move to. There are not enough rented homes owned by the Council and by its partners to offer housing to all who want it, or even to everyone who needs a home.

3. As at October 2012, there were over 18,300 households on the housing register, with only around 1600 properties available to be let each year. By the time of the introduction on 31 October 2022 by the Council of a new Housing Allocation Policy, there were over 10,000 households on its housing register and fewer than 1000 properties, on average, available for letting each year. As of May 2025, there were 11,090 households on the housing register. According to the Council, if the current rate of housing supply remains unchanged and no new applicants are added, it would take over 11 years to house everyone currently on the register.

4. By section 166 A of the Housing Act 1996 , the Council, in its capacity as a local housing authority, must have a scheme, called an allocation scheme, “… for determining priorities, and as to the procedure to be followed, in allocating housing accommodation…” ( section 166 A(1)). Section 166 A (14) provides: “(14) A local housing authority in England shall not allocate housing accommodation except in accordance with their allocation scheme.” Section 166 A (11) further provides: “(11) Subject to the above provisions, and to any regulations made under them, the authority may decide on what principles the scheme is to be framed.”

5. Accordingly, the Council operates a Housing Allocations Scheme, which is revised from time to time. It is not necessary to go further back than the scheme introduced on 12 April 2017. As its most basic, anyone aged 16 or over could apply to join the housing list, unless they were ineligible (because of immigration status or unacceptable behaviour) or disqualified (on account of having breached the Council’s “One Offer” or “Three Offers” rules, or having significant financial resources, or having supplied false information, or not having a local connection with Lewisham, or having significant rent arrears).

6. Applications were assessed and placed into a Priority Band. Applicants in Band 1 were given highest priority. This band included people such as persons awarded an Emergency Priority by a Housing Panel; certain Lewisham employees; persons who has been in temporary accommodation for more than 12 months where the lease was due to come to an end within 6 months; persons whose homes were being demolished; “under occupiers” who were moving out; certain young persons being looked after by the Council; and certain persons connected with the Armed or Reserved Forces.

7. Applicants in Band 2 were a high priority but still had to wait some time to be rehoused. It is not necessary to set out all the categories of persons in Band 2, other than to note that it included such persons such as those would probably become homeless within 90 days, anyone with a high medical priority as recommended by Medical Advisors, and residents of ‘supported housing’ schemes ready to move into independent accommodation. Importantly, for the purposes of this application, it included the following: “Households who are seriously overcrowded in settled accommodation. Settled accommodation does not include, for example, temporary accommodation secured under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 , the Children Act 1989 , decant accommodation, a shared house, HMO or hostel. This applies to those who are two bedrooms (or more) short for their needs . When working out how many bedrooms you have, the Council will use the following rules: [ emphasis added] ◦ Any room designed as a bedroom will be counted as a bedroom ◦ If you have more than one living room, all extra living rooms will be counted as a bedroom ◦ A bedsit or studio flat will count as one bedroom ◦ Any room smaller than 50 square foot will not count as a bedroom.”

8. Band 3 included applicants who, in the opinion of the Council, had one of the following needs: they were homeless within the meaning of Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 ; they were owed one of the main housing duties by any local housing authority or were occupying temporary accommodation provided or arranged by a local housing authority; a Council Environmental Health Officer had recommended that they need to move because their current home was unsafe, unsanitary or lacking in basic facilities; they had a need to move because, unless they were rehoused, they or any member of the household would suffer a significant deterioration in their physical or mental illness as a result of their present housing circumstances as determined by the Council’s Medical Advisor; or they had a welfare need to move to a particular locality within the district, in order to give or to receive care or support as determined by the Council’s Medical Advisor.

9. As for those who were in overcrowded accommodation, Band 3 included: “Households in settled accommodation who are overcrowded because their present accommodation is one bedroom short of their needs . Please see 2.5.3 for what counts as “settled accommodation”. When working out how many bedrooms you have, the Council will use the following rules: [ emphasis added ] ◦ Any room designed as a bedroom will be counted as a bedroom ◦ If you have more than one living room, all extra living rooms will be counted as a bedroom ◦ A bedsit or studio flat will count as one bedroom ◦ Any room smaller than 50 square foot will not count as a bedroom.”

10. It is important to note that the 2017 scheme contained no Band 4, and that the criteria for determining whether a person was overcrowded for the purposes of Band 2 and £ revolved exclusively around the issue of whether, pragmatically, the number of bedrooms was one bedroom short of that person’s needs.

11. When a property became available, the Council would look at which applicants had expressed an interest or ‘bid’. It then decided which of those applicants the property was most suitable for on the basis of property size. Within the group of applicants for whom the property was suitable on the basis of size, the property would be offered first to the applicant in the highest Priority Band. If there was more than one applicant within the same Priority Band, it would be offered first to the applicant within that band who has been in that band the longest (by reference to their ‘Band date’ or ‘priority list date’).

12. The 2017 scheme also expressly provided that “If your circumstances change and you are awarded a higher priority, your Band date applies from the date you are given the higher priority, not the original date of your application”.

13. In 2020 the Council decided to consult on the introduction of a new scheme. In accordance with section 166 A (13) of the Housing Act 1996 , a public consultation ran from 27 November 2020 to 14 March 2021. A new Housing Allocation Policy was introduced on 6 October 2021. It came into force on 31 October 2022.

14. The 2022 scheme introduced a banding system under which overcrowding definitions were revised so as to better ensure that those with the most pressing needs were prioritised for accommodation, including those who were the most chronically overcrowded and homeless households.

15. In the words of Nina Morris, a Housing Register Assessment and Allocations Manager at the Council: “7. By 2020 it had become clear to the Council that the previous policy (in place between 2017 and 2022) no longer reflected the scale or nature of housing need in the borough, particularly in relation to overcrowding. The previous banding system did not sufficiently distinguish between levels of overcrowding, meaning that households living in the most severely cramped conditions – such as those lacking three or more bedrooms – were not being prioritised over those with more moderate need. In addition, the policy did not account for statutory overcrowding as defined under the Housing Act 1985 , which resulted in a misalignment between legal definitions and operational policy.

8. The revised Housing Allocation Policy, implemented on 31 October 2022, was therefore a deliberate and necessary reset. Its purpose was to ensure that priority was based on current, evidenced need rather than legacy assessments under a superseded framework. It introduced a clearer banding structure that placed those experiencing the most acute overcrowding – such as statutory cases and those lacking three or more bedrooms – into higher bands, while lowering the banding of applicants with less severe overcrowding.”

16. Furthermore, provision was expressly made for the first time for those who were “statutorily overcrowded” within the meaning of section 324 of the Housing Act 1985 . Section 324 provides: “324. Definition of overcrowding. A dwelling is overcrowded for the purposes of this Part when the number of persons sleeping in the dwelling is such as to contravene – (a) the standard specified in section 324 (the room standard), or (b) the standard specified in section 326 (the space standard)”.

17. The three existing bands were replaced by four new bands. Under the 2022 scheme, those who were overcrowded by at least three additional bedrooms or who required two additional bedrooms and were statutorily overcrowded were included (amongst other categories of persons) in Band 2 (“High Priority”).

18. Band 3 (“Medium Priority”) included applicants who needed at least two additional bedrooms or were overcrowded by one additional bedroom and were statutorily overcrowded, and Band 4 (“Low Priority”) included the least severe overcrowding, namely applicants who were “overcrowded by 1 bed and not statutorily overcrowded” or households who were statutorily overcrowded on lack of space but who were not in need of additional bedrooms.

19. According to Ms Morris, in her first statement of 17 July 2025, all applicants were re-classified: “9. To apply these new rules fairly and consistently, it was essential that all existing applicants we reassessed against the new criteria. Automatically retaining previous Band dates under the old system would have undermined the entire purpose of the policy reform, which was to rebalance the register in line with the Council’s current understanding of need.”

20. In so far as those persons who were overcrowded and who has been in Band 3 under the 2017 scheme were concerned, i.e. those persons in settled accommodation who were overcrowded because their present accommodation was one bedroom short of their needs (but who were not designated as “statutorily overcrowded”), they were automatically re-classified as Band 4 (Ms Morris’ second statement of 19 September 2025): “13. Upon the introduction of the Council’s Revised Allocation Policy in 2022, the Claimant was one of circa 4.000 individuals in the Borough who were overcrowded by one bed and who were placed into a newly created Band 4”.

21. The 2022 scheme retains the core principle of offering a suitable property to those in the highest Priority Band first; para 3.3. Accordingly, the higher the band, the quicker an applicant can expect to be offered a property to move into. If there is more than one applicant within the same Priority Band, it is offered first to the applicant within that band who has been in that band the longest i.e. who has the earliest Band date. Where two bidding applicants are in the same Priority Band and have the same Band date, the length of time on the Housing Register will be determinative.

22. According to Ms Morris, following implementation of the 2022 scheme, the Council accepted applications from applicants applying to move to a higher band because they thought they might meet one of the newly created eligibility criteria. This was done through the submission of a change of circumstances form. However, in contradistinction to the position under the 2017 scheme, which expressly referred (see paragraph 12 above) to the fact that an upward change in band would lead the Band date being brought forward to the date of the application, the 2022 scheme contained no reference to the ability to apply to join a higher band on the ground of change of circumstances or the fact that, in the event of a successful application, the Band date would be changed to the date on which the application had been made to join the higher band (in reflection, it is presumed, of the fact that the applicant, if successful, would be gaining the advantage of being in a higher band, and thus would be considered before those persons in the band in which they had formerly been). According to Ms Morris, the wording had been “inadvertently omitted” from the 2022 scheme (paragraph 21 of her second statement), but this had not amounted to a “substantive” change; it had been “editorial” only.

23. The Claimant was nevertheless informed, by letter dated 25 October 2022, that if she had formerly been a Band 3 person, and had been automatically been places in Band 4, she had the right to apply to be placed in Band 3 if she required one additional room and thought that she was statutorily overcrowded. She was not told that, if successful, her Band date would be changed from her existing Band date to the date on which she made such an application (if successful). However, an email from the Council to the volunteer group Housing Action Southwark Lambeth (HASL), who were assisting the Claimant, on 2 December 2022, stated: “However since the introduction of our new allocation policy Miss Rodriguez may be eligible for the new ‘overcrowded by 1 – statutory overcrowding – Band 3. In order for this to be determined Miss Rodriguez will need to complete a change of circumstances form. This form has been updated to capture all the rooms the family have access to and their sizes. If awarded the new banding this will be from when the change of circumstances form is received. No application that is awarded statutory overcrowding will be back dated prior 31st October 2022 as before this date the eligibility did not exist.” [ emphasis added ]

24. Evidence from the Council suggests that around 151 people were moved into Band 3 from Band 4 on the introduction of the new scheme, either by way of automatic designation or by the Council’s housing IT system, Locata, or following the submission of an individual change of circumstances form.

25. In August 2025 the Council corrected the omission by revising the 2022 scheme to include the sentence: “If your circumstances change and you are awarded a higher priority Band, your Band date will be updated to the date that new priority was given – not your original application date.” The application

26. In this case, the Claimant challenges the manner in which the Council designated her under the 2022 scheme. The Claimant has resided at 73 Glenfarg Road, London SE6 1XN since 15 June 2017 with her adult daughter. The accommodation, which is rented from a private sector landlord, is a one-bedroom flat on the third floor of a converted house and has one bathroom and one kitchen. The property is described as very small; it has no living room, and the Claimant and her daughter have to share a bed. The Council now accepts the accommodation is statutorily overcrowded.

27. On 10 May 2021, the Claimant applied for an allocation of social housing, and the application was governed by the allocation scheme then in force. She was placed in the then Band 3, reflecting the fact that her accommodation was overcrowded by one bedroom. She was given a Band date of 10 May 2021.

28. On the coming into force of the 2022 scheme, the Claimant, as someone who was overcrowded in settled accommodation and who required one additional bedroom, was automatically placed into the new Band 4, indicating the lowest level of housing need. Her original Band 3 date of 10 May 2021 was “retained at this point” (paragraph 30 of the statement of Nina Morris dated 17 July 2025). As set out above, she was informed that she could apply to be placed in the new Band 3 “if you require one additional room and you think you are statutorily overcrowded”. Accordingly, she challenged this determination by way of submitting a change of circumstances form on 27 December 2022.

29. On 3 May 2023 the Claimant was informed, via a 1 st stage verification notice, that she had been awarded Band 4, with a priority list date of 10 May 2021. On 12 May 2023, HASL wrote on her behalf to the housing allocations reviews team at the Council, seeking a review of that decision and providing measurements of the accommodation. On 10 July 2023 a Housing Register Assessment and Allocations Officer responded, stating that, since the Claimant lived in a two-person household in accommodation consisting of two rooms, a bedroom and a living room, she did not qualify for statutory overcrowding.

30. HASL informed the Council that it had been mistaken, as the accommodation consisted in fact only of a bedroom, a kitchen and a bathroom. Photos of the accommodation were sent on 18 July 2023, and, on 21 July 2023, the Council awarded the Claimant statutory overcrowding. This meant that she was entitled to be in Band 3, although the email did not expressly state as such.

31. In September 2024 the Claimant was, however, rejected for a property on which she had successfully bid because, she was informed, she has been “wrongly” placed in Band 3. HASL again complained to the Council on her behalf.

32. On 21 October 2024, the Council informed the Claimant that although she had indeed been designated as Band 3 by a housing officer (who had since left the Council), this uplift in band had been “incorrect” and would be “amended to” Band 4 (overcrowded by one, but not statutorily overcrowded), on account of the fact that, as the Council understood it, the Council had never received evidence demonstrating that the accommodation did not have a separate living room (from the bedroom). The Council also stated that the landlord, whom it had contacted, had claimed that there was a separate ‘large’ living room. The letter of 21 October 2024 further stated that, in July 2023, the Band date should have been recorded by the housing officer as 27 December 2022, and not 10 May 2021, as the former date was the correct date on the premise that she had, at that stage, been moved into Band 3.

33. The Claimant challenged this decision on 3 November 2024, and advanced further representations on 7 November 2024 as to why she should be in Band 3 and why the Band date should have been 10 May 2021 after all. The Council responded on 9 December 2024, confirming that it accepted that she was statutorily overcrowded and that she would be placed in Band 3. However, as someone who had been moved into Band 3, the Band date was correctly that of 27 December 2022. Were she to have remained in Band 4, the Band date would have remained 10 May 2021.

34. Further pre-action correspondence resulted in the Council exercising its discretion on 11 February 2025 by bringing forward the Band date to 31 October 2022, a benefit of some two months, in recognition of the initial error concerning the banding priority and on account of the Claimant’s language and digital literacy barriers, which may have contributed to her delay in submitting the change of circumstances form.

35. The Claimant therefore now challenges the Defendant’s refusal, contained in the letter dated 9 December 2024, not to allow her to be prioritised on the housing register with a Band date of 10 May 2021 (as opposed to 31 October 2022).

36. The Claimant describes in her statement how difficult she and her daughter find living in such cramped and overcrowded conditions, but that their current property is the most that they can afford at present. The living situation means that neither the Claimant nor her daughter have any privacy and they often get into arguments with each other. There has also been considerable impact on their social lives and their health, particularly their sleep.

37. She asserts that the time frame imposed on her means she will have to wait at least another 3.5 years to bid successfully, unless her priority is backdated to when she first entered Band 3, which was 10 May 2021. She further points to screenshots taken from the Council’s bidding system, which she believes shows that “many of the people who were successful at bidding, and who were in Band 3, had Band dates before October 2022” and that “people with a Band date which is similar to my original Band date of 10 May 2021, are now also successful at getting properties.”

38. Ms Morris’ evidence is that, in fact: “45. When preparing a response to this claim, I conducted a data check and have identified 7 cases that have the statutory overcrowding priority with a Band date prior to 31 October 2022.

46. I identified that these cases by running report on the Locata IT system for applicants who has overcrowding as part of their ‘Rehousing Reason’ and those with a Band date which pre-dated the implementation of the policy (31 October 2022).

47. The 7 cases have now been reassessed and their priority band and Band date amended to reflect Lewisham Housing Allocation Policy 2022. We have exhibited a table reflecting the position and changes to the banding and/or date for these 7 cases [Exhibit NM/08].

48. Two of these were transferring social housing tenants who were correctly placed in Band 4, but the Rehousing Reason was recorded as statutory overcrowding, rather than overcrowded by 1 bedroom.

49. The other five were in Band 3, but the Band date was incorrect, these applicants have had their Band dates amended to 31 October 2022.”

39. On 27 February 2025 the Council emailed the Claimant’s solicitor to inform her that the minimum waiting time for Band 3 applicants with a 2-bedroom need is 6 years. The parties’ arguments

40. Mr Ahluwalia argues that the Council failed to apply its own policy in so far as the housing allocation scheme, properly construed, required that the Claimant be given a Band date of 10 May 2021. He contends that the Claimant was placed in Band 3 on 10 May 2021 for overcrowding, and that her circumstances have not changed since, given that she remains at the same property with the same household constitution. As she was entitled to Band 3 under both the old and new rules, her Band date should reflect the date that she was initially given, which was 10 May 2021.

41. It is no answer, he suggests, that the new scheme has a different criterion for Band 3, because the evidence shows that not all the existing Band 3 applicants had their Priority Bands reset on the coming into force of the new scheme. He also points to paragraph 1.1 of the new scheme, which provides: “The higher the Band, the quicker an applicant can expect to be offered a property to move into. Unless exceptional circumstances apply, within Bands those who have been in that Band or on the Housing Register the longest will be prioritised first” [ emphasis added by Claimant].

42. Mr Ahluwalia further argues that, in any event, the decision of 9 December 2024 was irrational or, if it flowed from a reasonable interpretation of the 2022 scheme, then the scheme itself is irrational because it required the Claimant to be given a later Band date, even though her circumstances had not changed. He argues that everyone who was in Band 3 under the 2017 scheme on the grounds of overcrowding by one bedroom, and who was permitted to move from Band 4 to Band 3 under the 2022 scheme, should be permitted to retain their initial Band date.

43. Mr Bates KC submits that the scheme was applied rationally and reasonably. He contends that there is nothing in the scheme, either expressly or impliedly, which required the Defendant to give the Claimant an effective date of 10 May 2021.

44. The Council had introduced a new eligibility criteria under which all the applicants who has previously been recorded as overcrowded by one bedroom were placed in Band 4 “overcrowded by one bedroom”. It provided, however, for a means by which applicants placed in Band 4 could apply to be moved into Band 3, the band for those considered to be “overcrowded by one bedroom and statutorily overcrowded”. The Claimant is, therefore, in a better position, even though her Band date has been fixed as 31 October 2022, and not 10 May 2021, because she was moved up to Band 3.

45. He submits that the scheme cannot be operated in such a way as to assign the Claimant a date before it was even introduced, and nor is this required by the precepts of fairness or any kind of legitimate expectation. If the Council were to backdate the Claimant’s Band date to 10 May 2021, it would be treating her differently to the other applicants on the housing register. Analysis

46. It is important to recall, first, that this is a judicial review challenge, and not an appeal against the merits of either the 2022 scheme or the decisions made under it. Second, the Claimant does not seek to suggest that the Council was not entitled to introduce the 2022 scheme in the form that it did, in so far as it provided for new Bands with new criteria or for a system by which one-bedroom overcrowded applicants who could demonstrate that they were statutorily overcrowded could be moved up to Band 3. She nevertheless challenges the associated automatic re-designation.

47. It is, of course, a matter for the local authority to determine how its housing allocation policy should be formulated. A wide discretion is given to local housing authorities. Section 159(7) of the Housing Act 1996 provides: “Subject to the provisions of this Part, a local housing authority may allocate housing accommodation in such manner as they consider appropriate”.

48. In R(Flores) v London Borough of Southwark [2020] EWCA Civ 1697 the Court of Appeal stated (at paragraph 11 per Males LJ): “Subject to some very general requirements, which include that the scheme shall be framed so as to secure that “reasonable preference” is given to certain categories of people, one of which is those “occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions”, local authorities have a wide discretion as to the principles on which their scheme should be framed and the way in which housing accommodation should be allocated (see sections 159(7) and 166A(5) and (11) ). Statutory guidance issued in 2012 explained that this flexibility is intended to enable local authorities "to tailor their allocation priorities to meet local needs and local circumstances””.

49. In planning its affairs and setting its budgets, an authority has to balance all the demands placed upon it by Parliament and match these with the sources of income available to it: R (Imam) v London Borough of Croydon [2023] UKSC at [61].

50. The width of this discretion was recognised in R (Ahmad) v Newham London Borough Council [2009] UKHL 14 , in which Lord Neuberger emphasised at [46] and [55] that housing allocation policy is a difficult exercise which requires not only social and political sensitivity and judgment, but also local expertise and knowledge, and that the courts should be slow to interfere on the ground of irrationality with a scheme which complies with the statutory requirements.

51. Of course, as further noted by Lord Neuberger, there will be cases where the court has a duty to interfere, for instance if a policy does not comply with statutory requirements, or if it is plainly irrational. However, there is no right to a house or, by extension, to a particular Priority Band. At most, as Baroness Hale made clear in R (Ahmad) v Newham London Borough Council (supra) at paragraph 12, there is a right to have the application for a house properly considered in accordance with a lawful allocation policy.

52. Adopting the approach identified in R (Ariemuguvbe) v Islington Borough Council [2009] EWCA Civ 1308 by Sullivan LJ, I must read the 2022 scheme in “a practical, common sense, and not in a legalistic way”.

53. Mr Ahluwalia argues that the Council failed to apply its own policy in so far as the housing allocation scheme, properly construed, required that the Claimant be given a Band date of 10 May 2021. However, there was nothing on the face of the 2022 scheme that required or permitted the Claimant to be allowed to retain her old Band date on being elevated to Band 3. Mr Ahluwalia argues therefore that such a requirement or power is to be implied into the 2022 scheme by virtue of the fact that the 2022 scheme was, in effect, a continuation of the 2017 scheme, in so far as Band 3 applicants were concerned, so that they should be permitted to retain the Band date that they had initially been assigned.

54. This submission cannot be accepted. The 2022 scheme was not a continuation of the old, in so far as those who were overcrowded by one bedroom were concerned. Unless they were able to show that they were also statutorily overcrowded (a categorisation that had not been contained within the 2017 scheme), they were automatically placed in a new Band 4. They were also required to submit a change of circumstances form demonstrating that they were also statutorily overcrowded if they wished to be moved up to Band 3. These were real and substantive changes, as testified to by the evidence of Ms Morris concerning the policy reasons driving the need for change, and the fact of a substantive consultation process. There was not simply “an amendment to the re-housing reasons” relating to the existing 2017 bands, as Mr Ahluwalia suggested in his skeleton argument.

55. In the course of his oral submissions, it was necessary for Mr Ahluwalia to argue that this automatic designation was itself flawed, or at least of no consequence, because the Claimant’s case rests upon being able to demonstrate that, for all intents and purposes, she has always been a Band 3 applicant. However, this is not a permissible argument. Given its wide discretion, the Council was entitled to introduce a system by which all pre-existing one-bedroom overcrowded applicants were automatically designated as Band 4. The existence of the new Band 4 and of that automatic re-designation establishes that, in so far as is relevant, the 2022 scheme was not a continuation of the old. And the new scheme simply did not provide for overcrowded by one-bedroom applicants to retain the Band date that they had under the 2017 scheme. It follows that the Council did not, in not giving the Claimant her old Band date, fail to apply its own policy under the 2022 scheme.

56. In further support of his argument that it did, Mr Ahluwalia argues that the screenshots taken from the Council’s bidding system, referred to above at paragraph 37, demonstrate that other than one-bedroom overcrowded applicants under the 2017 scheme have been treated more favourably under the 2022 scheme than her. However, that is not correct, for the reasons set out above.

57. I agree, however, that it is regrettable that neither the 2022 scheme, the accompanying guidance, nor the 25 October 2022 letter to the Claimant made clear that, in the event that a one-bedroom overcrowded Band 4 applicant successfully applied to be moved up to Band 3, he or she would lose their old Band date and be given a date corresponding to the date of the application. However, this failure of communication does not vitiate the legality of the 2022 scheme. Substantively, applicants are nevertheless put into a better place, by virtue of the uplift, than they would have been had they remained in Band 4 with the older Band date. In any event, the 2 December 2022 email from the council to HASL, who were assisting the Claimant, did make it clear what the consequences would be of a successful application.

58. Mr Ahluwalia’s second submission, that the decision of 9 December 2024 was irrational and that, if it in fact flowed from a reasonable interpretation of the 2017 scheme, then the scheme itself was irrational, is unsustainable. The argument is, essentially, that putting the Claimant into Band 4 and requiring her to apply to move up to Band 3, thereby giving her a new (and more recent) Band date, is so unfair and unreasonable as to be irrational.

59. In my view, for the reasons given above, the Council was entitled to set the parameters of the 2022 scheme as it did, and there was nothing irrational in the way that it was applied to the Claimant. There is nothing in the fact that five former Band 3, but now Band 4, one-bedroom overcrowded applicants were, apparently, allowed to retain their existing Band dates on being moved into Band 3. The evidence from the Council is that these dates have since been corrected.

60. There is, contrary to the submissions that were made, no general power vested in the Court to overturn a discretionary decision on the basis that it is perceived to have operated to a Claimant’s general disadvantage, short of the Court accepting that there has been a classic public law breach.

61. I am bound to conclude that there has been no such breach here and that neither the Defendant’s 9 December 2024 decision nor the 2022 scheme, in so far as it provided for one-bedroom overcrowded applicants, were unlawful. The application for judicial review must be refused.