Direct offer waiting lists

The judgment confirms that the Council was entitled to treat the list as an additional discretionary route for urgent cases, rather than a strict chronological queue, provided it remained within its direct offer procedure and had proper regard to equality considerations.

The decision in R (Carmen Castro Guallichico) v London Borough of Southwark [2026] EWHC 1665 (Admin) provides useful guidance for local housing authorities operating discretionary direct offer schemes alongside choice-based lettings.

In particular, the Court accepted that waiting time remained relevant, but not decisive. Where the policy allowed it, the Council could also take account of urgency and the suitability of a particular property for the household concerned.

Background

The Claimant, Ms Carmen Castro Guallichico, lived with her husband and four sons in a two-bedroom private rented flat. Her two youngest children have autism spectrum disorder and complex needs.

The family had been on Southwark’s housing register since 2018. Following reassessments in 2023 and 2024, including occupational therapy evidence, they were identified as needing a suitable five-bedroom property in the same area.

Southwark allocates most social housing through choice-based lettings, where applicants bid for advertised properties. It also operates a direct offer route for urgent cases.

Applicants accepted onto that route are placed on a direct offer waiting list. Offers are generally made by reference to the date an applicant was agreed for a direct offer, but the Council may also take account of:

• the specific property recommendation;
• any relevant risk areas or category of need; and
• the household size and number of bedrooms required.

In September 2024, Ms Castro Guallichico issued County Court proceedings alleging a failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.

Those proceedings were settled. As part of that settlement, the Council agreed to move the household into Band 1, the highest priority band on the housing register.

The family’s position on the direct offer list for four and five-bedroom properties later moved backwards as other households received direct offers.

The Judicial Review challenge

Ms Castro Guallichico challenged the Council’s approach by way of judicial review. Her case was, in broad terms, that the direct offer list was not being operated in the way the policy suggested.

She pointed to households with shorter waiting times receiving offers before her family, and to some households being marked as having “enhanced priority”.

The claim therefore focused on whether:

• the Council had followed its own direct offer procedure;
• applicants had been given enough information about how the list operated; and
• the Public Sector Equality Duty had been properly discharged.

The High Court’s decision

The High Court dismissed the claim. Its key findings were that:

• the Council had not stepped outside its direct offer procedure;
• waiting time remained relevant, but was not decisive; and
• senior officers were entitled to enhance priority where the circumstances justified it.

Against that background, the fact that some households received offers ahead of Ms Castro Guallichico did not, of itself, mean that the process was unlawful.

On transparency, the Court accepted that the Council could have explained the direct offer list, and the concept of enhanced priority, more clearly. However, that did not make the allocation process unlawful.

The Public Sector Equality Duty challenge also failed. The Court was satisfied that the Council had carried out an Equality Impact Assessment before adopting the allocation scheme in 2013 and had continued to monitor how the scheme operated.

On the evidence, the Court was not persuaded that disabled households were disadvantaged by the direct offer process.

Practical implications

For local authorities and registered providers, the judgment is a useful reminder that:

• direct offer schemes can lawfully involve discretion where the policy permits it;
• officers should be able to explain why one household has been prioritised over another; and
• equality considerations should be recorded at the point decisions are made.

The Court’s comments on transparency are also worth noting. Even where a scheme is lawful, applicants are more likely to challenge decisions if they do not understand why another household has been prioritised.

A clear record of the decision-making process is likely to be important if the decision is later challenged, particularly where the authority has moved away from date order because a household has been treated as urgent.

This article was written by the Social Housing team at MSB Solicitors.