Supreme Court to rule next week on homelessness duties and mandatory orders against local housing authorities

The Supreme Court will next week (28 November) issue its decision on when a court should make a mandatory order against a local housing authority to enforce a duty owed to a homeless individual under s193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 (the "1996 Act").

At issue in particular in R (on the application of Imam) (Respondent) v London Borough of Croydon (Appellant) is whether the court should take account of either: (a) budgetary constraints imposed on the housing authority; or (b) the availability of housing under a non-secured tenancy under Part VII of the 1996 Act (as opposed to a secured tenancy under Part VI of the 1996 Act).

The background to the case is that the respondent is disabled within the meaning of s6 of the Equality Act 2010.

The appellant, a local housing authority, has provided the respondent housing since 2014. Croydon accepts that (a) the property provided is not suitable accommodation, within the meaning of the 1996 Act; and (b) it is in breach of s193(2) of the 1996 Act by not offering suitable alternative accommodation.

The respondent judicially reviewed the appellant's failure to provide suitable alternative accommodation.

In the High Court, the Deputy Judge declined to exercise his discretion to award a mandatory injunction to require the appellant to provide suitable alternative accommodation.

In the Court of Appeal, this decision was overturned on the basis that the Deputy Judge had wrongly taken into account budgetary constraints imposed on the local housing authority in the exercise of his discretion and in the analysis of the steps taken by the authority to fulfil its statutory duty.

Croydon appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case was heard by Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Leggatt, Lord Richards and Lord Burnett on 3-4 May 2023.