R (Bell) v Lambeth LBC

The claimant challenged Lambeth's failure to secure suitable accommodation under the duty in section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. The court accepted that Lambeth had been in breach of that duty since 10 December 2020 and concluded that a mandatory order was appropriate. The judge applied the Court of Appeal's guidance in R (Elkundi) v Birmingham to consider (i) the nature and extent of the unsuitability of the current accommodation (mould, damp, pest infestation, lack of required ground-floor wheelchair-accessible bedrooms and inadequate bathing and circulation space), (ii) the serious adverse impact on the health, development and education of the claimant's two profoundly disabled children and on the claimant's own mental health, (iii) the lengthy period of non-compliance (over 20 months), and (iv) the prospects of suitable accommodation becoming available. The court found Lambeth had not taken all reasonable steps to secure alternative accommodation, that the combined effect of the public sector equality duty and the duty in section 11 of the Children Act 1989 reinforced the need for urgent relief, and ordered Lambeth to secure suitable accommodation within 12 weeks.

The claimant, a single parent of three children including two with profound disabilities, brought judicial review proceedings challenging the defendant local authority's failure to provide suitable accommodation under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. The family had been placed in interim accommodation at 388 Lower Addiscombe Road which Lambeth had accepted was unsuitable because of rising damp, mould, pest infestation and because the property lacked two ground-floor, wheelchair-accessible bedrooms and adequate bathing/moving-and-handling space. Lambeth accepted the section 193(2) duty from 10 December 2020 but the family remained in the property for over 20 months. The claimant sought a mandatory order requiring Lambeth to secure suitable accommodation within 12 weeks.

Procedural posture: First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court; permission to apply was granted. The court heard extensive witness evidence and documentary material from both parties and was also provided with documents from related proceedings against Croydon concerning education and social care for the children.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether Lambeth had breached its section 193(2) duty (accepted by Lambeth).
• Whether, applying the Elkundi criteria, it was appropriate to grant mandatory relief directing Lambeth to secure suitable accommodation and, if so, within what timescale.
• Whether a stay to allow further negotiations or alternative dispute resolution was appropriate.

Reasoning and disposition: The judge applied the Elkundi factors: the accommodation was found to fall well below the occupational therapist's stated minimum requirements, the living conditions were seriously damaging the children's health, development and education and the family had been in unsuitable accommodation for a prolonged period. On the likelihood of suitable accommodation becoming available, Lambeth stated it was confident it could secure accommodation if a possession order were made but produced no concrete evidence of a specific suitable property or timetable; the court therefore was not satisfied that the claim should be stayed on the basis that suitable accommodation would imminently be provided. The judge concluded Lambeth had not taken all reasonable steps (in particular given the claimant's willingness to be rehoused widely, limited use of section 213 referrals and other explored options) and that the public sector equality duty and section 11 Children Act considerations reinforced the need for urgent mandatory relief. The judge refused a declaration of breach as unnecessary given Lambeth's admitted breach but granted a mandatory order requiring Lambeth to secure suitable accommodation for the claimant within 12 weeks of the order.

First instance: The claim succeeded in part. The court declined to grant a standalone declaration because the defendant had admitted the breach, but granted mandatory relief: Lambeth was ordered to secure suitable accommodation for the claimant under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 by no later than 12 weeks from the date of the order. The rationale was that the current accommodation was plainly unsuitable, the adverse impacts on the children and claimant were severe and prolonged, Lambeth had not taken all reasonable steps to secure alternative accommodation and the public sector equality duty and section 11 Children Act responsibilities reinforced the need for urgent enforcement.