Joshua Jackson successfully represents claim in homelessness judicial review

Written by Cloisters

Image of Joshua Jackson

R (UO) v London Borough of Redbridge [2023] EWHC 1355 (Admin)

On 8 June 2023, the High Court allowed a claim for judicial review against the London Borough of Redbridge’s failure to comply with its duties under ss.188(1), 189A and 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996, read with s.11(2) of the Children Act 2004. The claimant succeeded on all grounds.

The claim was brought by a homeless single mother of three. After approaching the Borough for assistance, the family was accommodated in over 10 different hotels in the space of 5 months, most of which were 1-2.5 hours from the children’s school by public transport. This had significant impacts on the children’s education, the family’s mental health, and finances. Throughout that time, the Borough failed to lawfully assess the claimant’s needs and the only alternative on offer was to move to Peterborough, which would have required the children to change schools in the middle of the academic year and before important exams.

Mr Justice Lane held:

1.       The Borough’s initial housing needs assessment and personalised housing plan were unlawful, contrary to s.189A(2), (4)-(6) of the Housing Act 1996 read with s.11(2) of the Children Act 2004. In particular, the Defendant failed to make reasonable inquiries, lawfully assess and identify the Claimant’s housing needs, provide sufficient reasons, and take steps to consult with the Claimant.

2.       The Borough failed to conduct a lawful review of the Claimant’s housing needs and the suitability of accommodation under s.189A(9) of the Housing Act 1996, read with s.11(2) of the Children Act 2004.

3.       The Borough’s decisions that the hotel accommodation and (offered) accommodation in Peterborough were unlawful under ss.188(1) and/or 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996, read with ss.205-210 of the Housing Act 1996 and s.11(2) of the Children Act 2004.

4.       The Borough’s decision to terminate its duties under s.193 of the Housing Act 1996 after the Claimant refused an offer of accommodation in Peterborough was unlawful as the accommodation was unsuitable.

The Claimant successfully argued that permission/relief should not be refused on the basis that alternative remedies existed in relation to Grounds 3 and 4 (namely, through the statutory review and county court appeal process under ss.202-204 of the Housing Act 1996). Further, the Claimant successfully argued that the Borough must pay a significant portion of the Claimant’s costs on an indemnity basis due to non-compliance with court orders.

This is a significant judgment in clarifying local authorities’ duties under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. It follows Josh’s previous success in R (YR) v London Borough of Lambeth [2022] EWHC 2813 (Admin).

Most importantly, the family have now been provided with self-contained accommodation within the Borough.

Josh acted for the Claimant, instructed by William Ford of Osborne Law Solicitors.

The Judgment can be found here.