In short

Ms Lin, a homeless mother owed a full housing duty by Barnet Council, challenged the lawfulness of the Council's points-based housing allocation scheme. She had been placed in leased temporary accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 but could not successfully bid for permanent housing because the scheme awarded her only 10 homelessness points while other applicants could accumulate far more through income, residency and waiting-time points.

The case came to the Court of Appeal on four grounds alleging that the scheme unlawfully excluded or failed to give reasonable preference to homeless applicants, both as against other statutory preference groups and as against applicants with no statutory preference, and that it failed to specify the procedure for awarding 300 additional points when leased homeless accommodation was about to be returned to the landlord.

The Court of Appeal upheld the scheme on the reasonable-preference challenges but allowed the appeal on the fourth ground, holding that the scheme was invalid to a limited extent because it did not explain when and for how long the 300 lease-end points would be available.

Decision

Appeal (fourth ground: section 167(1) procedure for lease-end points) allowed in part, on terms that to the limited extent that the scheme omitted when and for how long the 300 lease-end points are available. [49]
Appeal (first, second and third grounds) dismissed. [49]

Issues

Does Barnet's allocation scheme unlawfully exclude homeless applicants from the allocation process or accord them an unreasonable preference, as compared with other applicants within section 167(2) of the Housing Act 1996?
No. The scheme gives homeless applicants a preference through homelessness points and other awards; section 167(2A) permits the Council to determine priorities between groups within section 167(2); and where homeless applicants are housed in suitable Part VII accommodation, the Council was entitled in its discretion to award only 10 points on the ground that their need for Part VI housing was less pressing. [31]
The test
Preference should not be confused with prospects of success; compliance with section 167(2) requires only a reasonable head start relative to persons who do not come within that subsection, not an outcome that guarantees allocation.
Does Barnet's scheme fail to secure reasonable preference for homeless applicants under section 167(2) because applicants outside that subsection may receive more points than those within it?
No. Section 167(6) and the Secretary of State's Code of Guidance permit other factors to be taken into account provided non-statutory preferences do not dominate the scheme at the expense of statutory preference categories; viewed as a whole, the scheme does not permit non-statutory categories to dominate homeless applicants, who receive additional homelessness and lease-end points unavailable to non-preferred applicants. [42]
Does Barnet's scheme comply with section 167(1) of the Housing Act 1996 by including all aspects of the allocation procedure relating to the award of 300 points when leased homeless accommodation is about to be returned to the landlord?
No, to a limited extent. Information as to when and for how long the 300 points are available is central to the operation of this part of the scheme and is an important aspect of the allocation process which section 167(1) required to be included; because it was omitted, the scheme is invalid to that limited extent. [48]

Reasoning

Section 167(2A) expressly permits a local housing authority to determine priorities as between groups within section 167(2), so awarding fewer points to homeless persons than to other statutory preference groups cannot of itself render a scheme unlawful. [26]
A scheme may take into account factors such as income and local connection for applicants outside section 167(2), provided that non-statutory preferences do not dominate the scheme at the expense of the statutory preference categories required by section 167(2). [36]
The window of opportunity for lease-end points — available only from three months before the lease is returned and for three months thereafter — was not mentioned in the scheme itself, although it was central to how that part of the points system operated in practice. [13]

Written by AI from the judgment on 27 August 2026. Each ¶ links to the paragraph it came from. Read those before relying on it.

▶Statutes Cited8

▶Case Law Cited2

▶Cited By16

Lin, (R on the application of) v London Borough of Barnet [2007] EWCA Civ 132

[2007] EWCA Civ 132

Case No C1/2006/1277

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Hughes J

Venue Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date 22/02/2007

Before

LORD JUSTICE DYSON

LADY JUSTICE HALLETT

SIR PETER GIBSON

Between

The Queen (Mei Ling Lin)Appellant

London Borough of BarnetRespondent

Mr A. Arden QC & Mr J. Manning (instructed by Messrs Pierce Glynn) for Appellant

Mr C. Baker & Mr N. Dilworth (instructed by London Borough of Barnet (Borough Solicitor)) for Respondent

Hearing Hearing date: 06 February 2007

Judgment

Cited in 16 later judgments

and 7 more of the most senior