This article is authored by Renata Burns of Shelter Legal Services. She instructed Tim Baldwin of the Garden Court Housing Law Team in acting for the claimant.
This was the judgment on an application for interim relief and a claim for judicial review against the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham, for their failure to accept the Main Housing Duty and provide suitable temporary accommodation initially under section 188(1) Housing Act (HA) 1996 and then under section 193 HA 1996.
Background
The claimant, DK, is a victim of trafficking and has a diagnosis of PTSD and anxiety. She is a lone parent of three children aged thirteen, seven, and two. The family were evicted from their property in the private rented sector in July 2025, following accelerated possession proceedings.
Barking and Dagenham had accepted the Relief Duty in January 2025, and prepared a Personalised Housing Plan which lacked sufficient detail and took no further steps. The warrant for eviction was forwarded to them almost as soon as it was received on 20 May 2025 and a pre-action letter followed in June 2025. Barking and Dagenham continued to refuse to accept the main housing duty or give any assurances as to the type of temporary accommodation that would be provided.
Application for Judicial Review
Three days before they were due to be evicted, DK issued a claim for judicial review.
The day before the eviction, the Court informed the parties that they would not make an Order for interim relief in view of the short timeframe, which they were concerned would result in the family being placed in unsatisfactory emergency accommodation. It noted that Barking and Dagenham had indicated that alternative accommodation would be provided the following day.
DK was evicted the following day, and, around midday, was informed by Barking and Dagenham that a booking had been made at a Travelodge in the borough. The weather was very hot, the Travelodge did not have a fridge or cooking facilities. The family were forced to eat fast food. The children struggled to sleep and were very upset, frequently crying. There was no space for them to play or do their homework. DK’s seven year-old daughter in particular was very distressed, and her school became involved. The thirteen year-old suffered from the lack of privacy. DK’s mental health deteriorated, her prescription for anti-depressants was increased, and she was prescribed sleeping tablets.
A further application was issued within the proceedings, seeking an interim relief for suitable temporary accommodation to be provided.
Judge’s Decision
On 21 July 2025, Sarah Crowther KC, sitting in the High Court, granted an interim mandatory injunction attaching a penal notice to the injunction, that Barking and Dagenham had seven days in which to secure suitable available temporary accommodation for DK and her children. In her very detailed reasons, she looked to Iman.
- She noted that Barking and Dagenham had not reviewed the Personal Housing Plan and that there was a strong prima facie case that Barking and Dagenham had been, and continued to be, in breach of its duty under Section 193 (2) HA 1996, since the Relief Duty had expired in March 2025.
- She noted that there was no evidence for the Court from Barking and Dagenham as to the steps which had been taken prior to secure appropriate accommodation for DK which was suitable for her needs. This was despite the Court inviting the Council to respond.
- She highlighted that the question in Iman is whether the local authority had taken all reasonable steps to comply with duties, and that question is an objective one for the Court determine – that the evidential burden lies in the local authority to demonstrate what steps they have taken, and what the difficulties are (R (Elkundi) v Birmingham City Council and others [2022] 3 WLI 71).
- She also noted that it did not appear that a mandatory order undermined Barking and Dagenham’s ability to carry out its functions or otherwise act in the public interest and there was no other order to be made which would vindicate DK’s rights.
- Finally, she noted that apart from the bare assertion in an email from Barking and Dagenham’s lawyer, there was no evidential basis to suggest that compliance would be impossible. She noted that no detail had been provided to state what measures had been considered to remedy the breach of duty.
In terms of the impact on DK and her children – highlighting their young ages- she noted that remaining in the wholly inadequate accommodation was severe and that Barking and Dagenham had been in breach of its duty for four months, with no sign of any steps in place to remediate the situation.
Barking and Dagenham had indicated in correspondence that they intended to simply extend the hotel on a rolling week-by-week basis, and did not indicate any intention to find suitable accommodation.
On this basis, the judge also granted permission for judicial review on four of the five grounds relied upon, which are:
- (1) breach of statutory duty pursuant to s 193(2) Housing Act 1996 by failing to accept and notify Claimant of this duty;
- (2) breach of statutory duty by failing to have regard to the Code of Guidance by requiring the Claimant to continuing to reside a property until actually evicted;
- (3) breach of statutory duty by failing to secure suitable accommodation for the Claimant, and;
- (4) failing to make a lawful assessment of the Claimant’s housing needs.
The judge also gave directions to a final hearing.
This claim is unusual in that the Court was prepared to grant an interim mandatory injunction as interim relief by reference to the cases of Elkundi and Imam, given the particular circumstances of the Claimant in the accommodation provided by the Defendant local authority.
