header-logo header-logo

29 November 2023
Issue: 8051 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Housing
printer mail-detail

Landmark housing case gives councils more flexibility

Local authorities have a duty to provide accommodation within a reasonable period of time rather than immediately, the Supreme Court has held in a unanimous landmark judgment

R (on the application of Imam) v London Borough of Croydon [2023] UKSC 45 concerned the extent of a local authority’s duty of care when seeking to house homeless individuals, given current budget constraints and lack of available housing.

Croydon had placed a disabled and homeless individual with three children into a wheelchair-adapted house, where the only bathroom was on a separate floor to the individual’s bedroom. It had been unable to find a more suitable property. The case centred on whether the court could make a mandatory order for Croydon to secure suitable accommodation in a fixed time period when it had taken all reasonable steps.

The court dismissed Croydon council’s appeal but ruled in principle that councils can’t be compelled by a mandatory order to do the impossible.

Victoria Searle, associate at Browne Jacobson, who advised Croydon council, said: ‘This judgment will bring sighs of relief from many local authorities.

‘The Supreme Court has recognised that the pressures faced by local authorities (and the difficulties that they face in balancing the increasing demands on their housing services with serious budgetary pressures) are significant factors in the court’s exercise of its remedial relief. While local authorities will, rightly, be required to demonstrate that they have taken all reasonable steps to perform their duty, the courts should not grant relief in cases where this would cause unfairness to others who are dependent upon that authority for housing or cause significant disruption to an authority’s management of its resources to meet all the functions imposed on it by Parliament.’

Giving the main judgment, Lord Sales clarified that the main housing duty is immediate, non-deferable, and unqualified.

However, where a court is satisfied all reasonable steps have been taken, it should not grant a mandatory order requiring the impossible. The court must also have regard to the risk of creating unfairness, by making an order which could allow a claimant to leapfrog others in greater housing need.

Issue: 8051 / Categories: Legal News , Local government , Housing
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Trowers & Hamlins—Paul Batchelor

Trowers & Hamlins—Paul Batchelor

Trowers Hamlins strengthens Birmingham Office with senior corporate partner hire

Birketts—trainee appointments

Birketts—trainee appointments

Birketts welcomes largest ever Trainee Solicitor cohort for 2026

Sidley—James Sherlock

Sidley—James Sherlock

Sidley Expands Private Equity Practice With James Sherlock in London

NEWS
More than 500 former rugby players can pursue brain injury claims despite serious failures to disclose documents ordered by the High Court
The Thirlwall Inquiry has exposed a ‘complete failure’ to protect babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital, but its recommendations must now be put into practice
A divorced woman has secured funding to participate in her former husband’s inquest after the Legal Aid Agency reconsidered repeated refusals
When does a solicitor’s retainer become a contentious business agreement? The Court of Appeal’s decision in Broadfield Law UK LLP v Barnes shows that listing hourly rates alone will not do, leaving firms and clients uncertain about their rights over bills
MPs cannot simply resign their Commons seats. Instead, they take a nominal Crown office, usually the Chiltern Hundreds or Manor of Northstead, which disqualifies them from sitting
back-to-top-scroll