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

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Walkers—Muriel Marseille

Ashurst's Chief Risk Officer joins Walkers

Excello Law—John Osborne

Excello Law—John Osborne

Northern family lawyer John Osborne joins Excello

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

mfg Solicitors—Rebecca Rogers, Kennedy Langley & Victoria Griffiths

Trio of promotions announced at Kidderminster law firm mfg Solicitors

NEWS
A sole director can conspire with their own company for the purposes of the tort of unlawful means conspiracy, the High Court has ruled in a judgment with potentially wide implications for business disputes
The Court of Appeal has reinforced that domicile depends on intention rather than residence alone, in a significant post-Brexit ruling on cross-border financial remedy claims
The Chancery Division's long history comes to an end this autumn as it is reborn as the Business and Property Division, prompting questions over whether the shake-up is really necessary
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
back-to-top-scroll