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

Switalskis—Sally Ann Masih, Suzy Overton & Jane Beaumont

Switalskis—Sally Ann Masih, Suzy Overton & Jane Beaumont

Trio of recruits strengthens Switalskis residential property team

Ward Hadaway—Steven Hayward

Ward Hadaway—Steven Hayward

Birmingham law firm appoints construction partner

Flint Bishop—six appointments

Flint Bishop—six appointments

Flint Bishop accelerates Northern growth through strategic senior appointments

NEWS
A High Court decision has clarified that a home may be unfit for human habitation not only where conditions endanger health or safety, but also where they seriously undermine comfort and convenience

A longer time limit for employment tribunal claims, new charity law thresholds, property tribunal recruitment and appellate guidance on small-claims costs feature in the latest Civil Way round-up

A recent High Court ruling could make issue estoppel considerably more complex in cross-border litigation, requiring parties to consider the foreign law governing the underlying claim
The Supreme Court has overturned Cheshire West’s bright-line test for deprivation of liberty, replacing it with a broader, more contextual assessment that gives greater weight to an individual’s wishes, feelings and apparent consent
Jonathan Fisher KC’s wide-ranging fraud report contains worthwhile proposals, but turning them into workable reform will require money, capacity and political will
back-to-top-scroll