Landmark housing case gives councils more flexibility

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.