Tim Baldwin of the Garden Court Housing Law Team acted for the Claimant, instructed by Elisa Cronier-Mackie of Lawstop.
This case has been cited in Housing: recent developments in Legal Action Magazine (October 2025).
Background
The Claimant, TT, who has settled status and indefinite leave to remain, had recently given birth to a third child in July 2025, following emergency caesarean. The Claimant and her two small children, husband, and mother were living in a one-bedroom temporary accommodation with shared facilities.
One of the children, a five-year-old, has had an autism diagnosis verified by the Emergency Healthcare Plan (EHP) from the Local Authority. The Claimant’s GP surgery had also written urgently, recommending safer and more suitable accommodation.
The main duty under s 193(2) Housing Act 1996 was accepted in July 2024 and that the accommodation was unsuitable for the continued occupation of the Claimant and her family in September 2024. The Local Authority had previously responded to the Claimant in May 2025, apologising and indicating there is an 18-year waiting list for a three-bedroom property.
Judicial Review
TT brought a claim for judicial review, filed on 8 August 2025, of the Local Authority’s continuing failure to secure suitable accommodation for her and her family pursuant to s 193(2) Housing Act 1996.
In an application for urgent consideration, on 8 August 2025, Mrs Justice Foster DBE expedited the claim with directions for service of summary grounds of defence. This did not grant an interim mandatory order for re-housing, but rather, directed consideration of the case by a judge on 15 August 2025 for permission and interim relief, including consideration of a mandatory order.
The Judge noted: “The court will expect the Defendant to present the court with a concrete recommendation as to re-housing this family in the near term.”
The final remedies sought based on the grounds for judicial review were summarised as:
- a. A declaration that the accommodation is unsuitable and unreasonable for the Claimant and her family to continue occupy and that the Defendant is in breach of statutory duty pursuant to s 193(2) Housing Act 1996.
- b. A declaration that the Defendant is a breach of statutory duty under s 189A Housing Act 1996.
- c. A declaration that the Defendant in is breach of statutory duty under s 11 of the Children Act 2004
- d. A mandatory order requiring the Defendant to provide the Claimant, her partner and her children with suitable accommodation pursuant to s 193(2) Housing Act 1996.
The Defendant sought to defend all grounds, asserting that by providing the present accommodation they were not in breach of s 193(2) Housing act 1996, and denying the claim.
On 15 August 2025, Deputy High Court Judge, David Pittaway KC, granted permission for judicial review on all grounds, expedited the hearing and granted interim relief by way of a mandatory interim order for the Defendant to secure suitable temporary accommodation for the Claimant and her family, within 10 days of the service of the order.
In observations and reasons on the grant of the interim mandatory remedy, the Judge reasoned;
“(2) I have considered the modified American Cyanamid test. On the basis of what I have read, I am satisfied that the Claimant has a strong prima facie case that the Defendant’s ongoing failure to provide suitable temporary accommodation pursuant to section 193 of the Housing Act 1983 and a failure to make a proper assessment of the Claimant’s housing needs is unlawful, and that the Claimant and her family require urgent temporary suitable accommodation.
(3) In my view, the balance of convenience is in favour of the grant of interim relief, in circumstances where there is compelling evidence that the Claimant’s accommodation is unsuitable, namely providing one small room in a hostel for three adults, two small children and a newborn baby, and where one child has been diagnosed with autism. The benefits to the Claimant and her family outweigh the risks to the Defendant’s policy and provision of accommodation.
(4) I have ordered that the hearing be expedited in circumstances where there are issues as to the availability of suitable temporary accommodation to the Defendant, however, that does not derogate from my view that interim relief should be granted to provide the Claimant and her family urgently with new accommodation.”
Outcome
The matter was listed for a final hearing on 9 October 2025. The Defendant Local Authority had applied to vary the timing for compliance with the interim order, but has not sought to stay its enforcement. The Claimant, TT had sought to enforce the interim order, resist the Defendant’s application and bring contempt proceedings.
The case has now settled, with the Defendant making an offer of suitable accommodation, the contempt proceedings have been withdrawn, and the Defendant ordered to pay costs.
