top of page

High Court Clarifies Law on Public Acts of Housing Associations


The High Court recently announced its decision in R (Macleod) v Governors of the Peabody Trust, setting limits on which actions of a housing association are ‘of a public nature’.

In this case, Macleod occupied a property that had been purchased from the Crown estate in 2011 by Peabody, a housing association, by means of a bond issue. Subsequently, Macleod had applied to Peabody to exchange properties with another social housing tenant in Scotland. Peabody signalled agreement to this but later refused the transfer. Macleod then initiated judicial review proceedings against Peabody, arguing that it had unlawfully fettered its discretion.

The leading case on this issue was R (on the application of Weaver) v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2009] (Weaver), where the court found that providers of social housing were under certain circumstances carrying out functions of a public nature and therefore subject to judicial review under the Human Rights Act (HRA). While the court in Weaver specifically clarified that this did not necessarily include all actions of housing associations, it was not clear where the boundaries of the ruling were. Indeed, prior to Peabody, commentators had noted a distinct lack of cases where housing associations were not found to be exercising a public function.

In this case however, the court dismissed the claim for judicial review, deciding that Peabody’s actions regarding the housing were not of a public nature for three key reasons:

  1. The housing was not “pure” social housing as, though it was offered at discounted rates, some of its tenants were of an income bracket that was well served by the private market.

  2. The houses were purchased on the free market, without the use of public funds.

  3. The court did not find the existence of sufficient statutory regulation or the existence of an allocation agreement to show that the Trust’s work achieved a statutory objective.

While the law in Weaver remains ostensibly unchanged, this judgement is still important for a number of reasons. Firstly it clarifies the limits of the precedent in Wheeler. Secondly, by separating the arrangements surrounding these particular properties from Peabody’s broader role as a social housing provider, the ruling suggests that tenants of the same housing provider could potentially be subject to different standards of protection under the HRA, raising serious questions over fairness.

0 comments

ABOUT DAVITT JONES BOULD

As the largest, most experienced law firm specialising in real estate in the UK, we have been trusted advisors to the real estate market for 25 years. We have over 75 lawyers, all of whom joined us from senior in-house or private practice roles, and bring an average of 25 years’ post qualification experience each. With their expertise and commercial experience, we advise a prestigious client base in the public and private sector on the full spectrum of real estate legal issues, including commercial property, planning, property litigation, construction, environment, real estate finance and other related areas. Operating in our specialist area uniquely positions us to help other professional firms, and through our Real Estate Support solution we support teams in the silver circle, UK Top 30, US Top 50, the Big Four and beyond.

Website Privacy Policy

© 2025 Davitt Jones Bould Limited (DJB)

bottom of page