R (Imam) v London Borough of Croydon

This is a judicial review of the defendant council's continuing breach of its duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to secure suitable accommodation for a wheelchair-using homeless applicant. The council admitted the accommodation it provided was unsuitable. The claimant sought a mandatory order requiring the council to provide suitable accommodation. The court declined to make a mandatory order, holding that mandatory relief is a discretionary remedy and, on the evidence, relief of that nature was not justified.

The court reached a number of subsidiary conclusions: (a) the council had not breached the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010; (b) the claimant had not established a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act because she failed to prove the required substantial disadvantage arising from a specific provision, criterion or practice; and (c) the council had unlawfully failed to determine the claimant's express requests to be placed in Band 1 under its Part 6 allocation scheme and a declaration to that effect was ordered.

The claimant, a wheelchair user and disabled person, had been housed since 2014 in a council-owned temporary property which the council accepted in June 2015 was not suitable because the bathroom was on a different floor from the claimant's bedroom. The claimant sought judicial review after repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain alternative suitable accommodation and requested a mandatory order that the council provide suitable accommodation within a specified time. She also alleged breaches of the Equality Act 2010, including the public sector equality duty and failure to make reasonable adjustments, and complained that the council had not considered placing her in Band 1 of its Part 6 allocation scheme.

Procedural posture: permission for judicial review was granted on the papers. The hearing was at first instance before Deputy Judge Mathew Gullick QC.

Issues for determination:

• Whether mandatory relief (an order requiring the council to provide suitable accommodation within a set time) should be granted for breach of section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996.
• Whether the council breached obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (including the public sector equality duty and the duty to make reasonable adjustments).
• Whether the council unlawfully failed to consider the claimant's request for Band 1 priority or to make a direct offer.

Court's reasoning (concise): The court accepted the council's admission that the accommodation was unsuitable and reviewed the authorities on the nature of the Part 7 duty and on relief. The judge emphasised that mandatory relief is discretionary and that, when considering relief, the court must have regard to the seriousness of the breach, the effects on the claimant, the council's efforts and resources and the position of other applicants. On the facts the claimant produced no evidence of current severe detriment; the council had been taking steps to find or adapt accommodation and faced a scarcity of suitably adapted properties and significant competing claims from other applicants. The public sector equality duty was found to have been observed in substance; the claimant did not prove the requisite PCP (provision, criterion or practice) and substantial disadvantage required to establish failure to make reasonable adjustments. Finally, the court held that the council had acted unlawfully in failing to determine the claimant's express requests to be placed in Band 1 and ordered a declaration requiring the council to determine that request in accordance with its policy.

The court declined to make the mandatory order sought but granted relief in the form of a declaration on the Band 1 issue.

The claim succeeded in part. The court refused to make the mandatory order sought to compel the defendant to provide suitable accommodation because the discretionary remedy was not justified on the evidence: the claimant had not shown that her present occupation was at the level of seriousness necessary to require mandamus, there was a scarcity of suitable adapted stock, the council had been taking steps and resources and the legitimate interests of other applicants had to be considered. The court held that the public sector equality duty had not been breached and that the reasonable adjustments claim failed for lack of evidence of a substantial disadvantage arising from a specific provision, criterion or practice. The court did, however, find that the defendant had unlawfully failed to determine the claimant's requests to be placed in Band 1 of its Part 6 allocation scheme and made a declaration to that effect, ordering the defendant to decide the request in accordance with its policy.