header-logo header-logo

Landmark housing case gives councils more flexibility

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll