PRINCESS BELL (R on the application of) v LONDON BOROUGH OF LAMBETH

The duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 is immediate, non-deferrable and unqualified. When deciding whether to grant a mandatory order for breach, the court should consider the extent of unsuitability, its impact on the household, the duration of the breach and the likelihood of suitable accommodation becoming available. General housing shortages and budgetary constraints do not determine whether relief is appropriate, although evidence about reasonable steps and property availability may be relevant. Serious disability-related harm and intolerable conditions strongly support relief. Public sector equality and child-welfare duties reinforce the need for proactive action. A stay for alternative dispute resolution is inappropriate where it would prolong serious harm.

This first-instance judicial review challenged Lambeth’s admitted failure to secure suitable accommodation for a single parent and her three children under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. Two children had profound disabilities and the existing accommodation was unsuitable, including because it lacked sufficient ground-floor wheelchair-accessible space and exposed the family to serious health risks.

The claimant sought a mandatory order requiring suitable accommodation within 12 weeks. The central issue was whether relief should be granted immediately, or whether the claim should be stayed for further discussions or alternative dispute resolution, including liaison with another local authority involved in separate education and social-care proceedings.

1. Relief. Lambeth’s breach of the section 193(2) duty was admitted. A declaration was refused because the breach had been admitted before proceedings, but the proceedings remained necessary to determine whether mandatory relief should be granted.
2. Mandatory-order assessment. Applying R (Elkundi) v Birmingham City Council and ors [2022] 3 WLR 71, the court considered the nature and extent of the accommodation’s unsuitability, its impact on the family, the period of non-compliance and the likelihood of suitable accommodation becoming available soon. The existing property fell fundamentally below the occupational therapist’s minimum requirements, particularly because it lacked two ground-floor wheelchair-accessible bedrooms.
3. The accommodation caused severe consequences. It aggravated the children’s respiratory conditions, restricted movement and family contact, delayed necessary surgery, prevented schooling and respite care, and placed the claimant at risk of physical and mental harm. The conditions were intolerable. Although that was not a precondition to a mandatory order, it was a powerful indication that one was required.
4. Reasonable steps. Lambeth’s evidence did not establish that suitable accommodation would be provided shortly or that all reasonable steps had been taken. Its confidence that accommodation could be secured if possession proceedings or a mandatory order intervened indicated that it remained capable of complying. The claimant’s willingness to move almost anywhere in England provided significant flexibility, but Lambeth had not made sufficiently wide referrals or explored all available funding and accommodation options. The immediate, non-deferrable and unqualified nature of the duty meant that the search for permanent Part VI accommodation could not justify delay.
5. The combined effect of the public sector equality duty and section 11 of the Children Act 1989 underscored the need for proactive attention to housing for families with disabled children. The court did not resolve whether the powers under the Housing Act 1985 permitted a property to be purchased or adapted specifically for the claimant.
6. A stay was refused. The breach had continued for over 20 months, further delay would risk additional harm, and Lambeth could continue discussions and liaise with the other authority during the compliance period. Lambeth was ordered to secure suitable accommodation under section 193(2) by no later than 12 weeks from the date of the order.