Section 189A Personalised Plans Cannot Require “Part 6 Allocation Steps”: Clarifying the Part 6/Part 7 Boundary

1. Introduction

AA, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Waltham Forest concerned the legal limits of what a local housing authority may (and must) record as its own “reasonable steps” in a personalised housing plan (“PHP”) made under section 189A of the Housing Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”).

The claimant, AA, a 29-year-old refugee with PTSD, applied to London Borough of Waltham Forest for homelessness assistance under Part 7. The authority accepted it owed her the main housing duty under section 193(2) and accommodated her temporarily.

The central dispute on appeal was not whether private rented sector accommodation could be suitable (AA lost that point below and did not appeal), but whether AA’s PHP was unlawful because it did not include authority “steps” to support AA in obtaining social housing via Part 6 allocation. The Deputy Judge held the omission unreasonable; the Court of Appeal disagreed and allowed the authority’s appeal.

Key legal issue

Whether “steps the authority are to take under this Part” in section 189A(4)(b) and section 189A(6) can include steps that relate to the authority’s Part 6 allocation functions (assessment of an application, allocation decisions, or making an offer of social housing).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal (Lewis LJ giving the lead judgment, with Elisabeth Laing LJ and Jeremy Baker LJ concurring) held:

  • Part 6 and Part 7 are distinct statutory schemes. The “steps” in a PHP under section 189A must be steps taken under Part 7.
  • Steps such as assessing a Part 6 application, deciding to allocate, and making an offer of social housing are steps taken under Part 6 and must be undertaken strictly in accordance with the authority’s allocation scheme under section 166A, especially section 166A(14).
  • Therefore, Part 6 allocation steps cannot be included as authority steps in a section 189A PHP.
  • The Court accepted that advice/assistance-type steps (e.g., helping a disabled applicant to apply or bid) may be capable of inclusion in a PHP where they are properly grounded in Part 7 advice functions (notably section 179)—but that was not the case found by the judge on the facts.

The appeal was allowed; the Deputy Judge’s declaration and order requiring a fresh PHP were set aside.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1) Norton v Haringey London Borough Council [2025] EWCA Civ 746; [2026] PTSR 49

AA relied on Norton to characterise the section 189A process as providing a “road map” that informs later decisions. The Court accepted the general proposition (Lewis LJ endorsed Lewison LJ’s explanation that an assessment under section 189A plays an important role in the “overall framework for helping the homeless” and informs subsequent decisions). However, the Court used that same framing to emphasise a limit: a “road map” under section 189A cannot rewrite the statutory boundary that confines the PHP’s authority-steps to those taken “under this Part” (Part 7), not steps taken under Part 6.

2) R (O) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] AC 255

This authority was cited for orthodox principles of statutory interpretation: the meaning of statutory words is derived from their text, statutory context, and purpose, using legitimate aids. The Court deployed that approach to construe “under this Part” in section 189A as a real constraint. Context mattered: Part 7 is homelessness assistance; Part 6 is allocation of scarce social housing via an allocation scheme.

3) Birmingham City Council v Ali [2009] 1 WLR 1506

The Court relied on Baroness Hale’s warning not to confuse duties under Part 6 with those under Part 7. That principle directly supported the outcome: even though acceptance of a Part 6 offer can bring the Part 7 main duty to an end (section 193(6)), it does not transform Part 6 allocation activity into Part 7 “steps”.

B. Legal Reasoning

1) Text: “steps … under this Part” means Part 7 steps

The controlling language in section 189A(4)(b) and the recording duty in section 189A(6) require the PHP to set out “the steps the authority are to take under this Part” (Part 7). The Court treated this as a deliberate statutory demarcation: Parliament authorised recording homelessness-assistance steps, not steps belonging to a different statutory regime.

2) Structure and function: Part 6 allocation is governed by a separate mandatory scheme

Part 6 requires allocation decisions to be made strictly through the authority’s allocation scheme (section 166A), and section 166A(14) prohibits allocation outside that scheme. As a result, the Court identified three “core” Part 6 steps:

  1. assessing the Part 6 application,
  2. deciding whether to allocate, and
  3. making an offer of social housing.

Those are legally constrained allocation functions; they are not discretionary support steps to be bargained over or recorded as Part 7 “reasonable steps” in a PHP. Including them would serve no lawful purpose because a PHP cannot lawfully “materially influence” allocation outcomes or relax scheme criteria.

3) Interaction is not identity: Part 6 outcomes may end Part 7 duties, but Part 6 steps remain Part 6 steps

The Deputy Judge reasoned that because a Part 6 allocation can end the section 193(2) duty (via section 193(6) and (7)), steps to secure Part 6 allocation were effectively Part 7 steps. The Court rejected that inference. Statutory cross-effects do not fuse statutory regimes. Section 193 itself refers expressly to “an offer of accommodation under Part VI”, reinforcing that the offer is made under Part 6 even if it affects a Part 7 duty.

4) A narrow “advice/assistance” space remains (but did not decide the case)

The Court drew an important distinction between:

  • Allocation/offer steps (Part 6 functions) — cannot be included in a PHP; and
  • Advice/assistance steps (e.g., helping someone to apply/bid) — potentially capable of inclusion in a PHP where they are truly steps taken under Part 7, for example under section 179.

On the facts, the Court held the Deputy Judge was not addressing application/bidding help: an application had already been made and AA had been banded, and there was no admissible evidence that AA needed assistance to apply or bid. Accordingly, even if such a claim were re-characterised, there was no basis to find irrationality/unreasonableness in omitting it.

C. Impact

1) Clear boundary for PHP drafting under section 189A

The judgment establishes a practical drafting rule: authorities must not frame PHP “authority steps” as if they can deliver or prioritise a social housing allocation outcome. PHPs should not promise allocation decisions, prioritisation, or offers of Part 6 accommodation.

2) Protects integrity of Part 6 allocation schemes

The decision reinforces that allocation scheme compliance (including section 166A(14)) cannot be sidestepped by Part 7 processes. This reduces litigation risk that PHPs could be used to argue implied “fast-tracking” or preferential treatment outside the scheme.

3) Leaves room for targeted support duties where evidenced

While rejecting Part 6 allocation steps in PHPs, the Court signposted that authorities may include (and in some cases might have to consider including) practical support steps—especially for applicants with disabilities or other barriers—where such steps are properly grounded in Part 7 advice functions (and potentially supported by Part 6 assistance provisions such as section 166). Future challenges are likely to focus on evidencing need for such support, rather than demanding allocation outcomes.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Part 7 (Homelessness): The legal framework requiring councils to assess homelessness and, where conditions are met, secure accommodation (e.g., section 193(2)).
  • Part 6 (Allocation of housing accommodation): The rules governing who gets social housing and how, using a formal allocation scheme with defined priorities.
  • Section 189A PHP (“personalised plan”): A written plan recording steps an applicant and the authority will take to help the applicant obtain and keep suitable accommodation. Importantly, the authority’s steps must be steps taken “under this Part” (Part 7).
  • Section 166A(14): A strict rule: councils cannot allocate social housing except in accordance with their allocation scheme.
  • Wednesbury unreasonableness / public law irrationality: A high threshold for unlawfulness: a decision is unlawful only if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have made it.
  • Ending the section 193 duty: Some events stop the council’s main homelessness duty—e.g., acceptance of a Part 6 offer (section 193(6)(c)) or acceptance/refusal of a private rented sector offer (sections 193(7AA)–(7AC)). But those events do not change which statutory “Part” governs the steps taken to reach them.

5. Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s key contribution is a clean doctrinal line: section 189A PHPs may record only authority steps taken under Part 7, and they cannot include steps that are, in substance, Part 6 allocation decisions (assessment, allocation, or offer), which must be made under and constrained by the allocation scheme.

At the same time, the Court preserved a limited and fact-sensitive space for PHPs to include advice/assistance that helps an applicant access Part 6 processes (such as applying or bidding), where that support is properly anchored in Part 7 functions (notably section 179) and supported by evidence. The decision will likely steer future litigation away from seeking “PHP promises” of social housing allocation and toward evidencing specific, practical barriers requiring lawful assistance.