AA v Waltham Forest: Court of Appeal draws firm line between Part 6 and Part 7 housing duties

The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by the London Borough of Waltham Forest, finding that a deputy High Court judge erred in holding that a local housing authority must include steps relating to the allocation of social housing under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 within a personal housing plan prepared under Part 7.

The respondent, AA, is a 29-year-old woman who was granted refugee status and applied for housing assistance in January 2024. The authority accepted that it owed her the main housing duty under section 193(2) of the 1996 Act and provided temporary accommodation. A revised personal housing plan, issued in August 2024, identified steps for the authority to take in sourcing suitable private rented sector accommodation but made no equivalent commitment in relation to social housing under Part 6.

AA sought judicial review on the basis that this amounted to an unlawful fettering of discretion and unreasonable conduct, given that an offer of Part 6 accommodation is one of the statutory mechanisms by which the section 193(2) duty can be brought to an end. Deputy High Court Judge Alegre agreed with that submission, holding that steps to support AA in her application for social housing should have been included in the personal plan and that the failure to do so was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal, in a judgement delivered by Lord Justice Lewis and agreed by Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Jeremy Baker, took a different view. The court held that the personal plan provisions in section 189A require the local authority to record "steps the authority are to take under this Part", the operative phrase being "under this Part" -- meaning Part 7 alone. Steps concerned with the assessment, allocation and offering of housing accommodation are taken pursuant to Part 6 and the allocation scheme required under section 166A. They cannot be repurposed as steps under Part 7 simply because the eventual acceptance of a Part 6 offer would end a Part 7 duty.

Lord Justice Lewis acknowledged that an authority could, in principle, include within a personal plan steps to assist a homeless person in making an application for Part 6 accommodation or in bidding for available properties -- for example, where a disability made independent engagement with the process impractical. Such steps would fall within the authority's function under section 179 of the Act to provide information and advice in connection with securing accommodation. Whether omitting such steps would be unlawful would depend upon the particular facts.

On the facts of this case, however, the court found no basis for that analysis. An application for Part 6 accommodation had in fact already been made on AA's behalf before the revised plan was issued, a matter that had been inaccurately described in the authority's detailed grounds for the judicial review. AA had been assessed and placed in Band 3 under the housing allocation scheme. There was no admissible evidence that she had experienced difficulty in applying or bidding, and the original claim had not meaningfully advanced that case.

The court also rejected the proposition that there was any inconsistency in a personal plan being able to include steps relating to private rented sector accommodation. Such steps involve arrangements made directly by the authority with a private landlord under section 193(7AC)(b) and are squarely within Part 7 functions. The parallel with Part 6 allocation does not hold because that process is governed entirely by the allocation scheme.

The appeal was allowed on both grounds. The declaration made by the High Court that the authority had acted unlawfully was set aside.

AA, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2026] EWCA Civ 626. Heard 6 May 2026; judgement handed down 19 May 2026. Matt Hutchings KC and Michael Mullin for the appellant; Lindsay Johnson for the respondent.