Rebecca Pickford, R (on the application of) v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

The court examined the meaning and application of the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 ('the 2003 Order') in the context of interim accommodation provided under s.188 Housing Act 1996. It concluded that where the 2003 Order applies to an applicant who has "family commitments" (including a person with whom dependent children reside), B&B accommodation is statutorily to be regarded as unsuitable once occupation has exceeded the 6-week limit in article 4, subject to the narrow availability exception. The judge held that the claimant and her dependent child fell within the Order and that the defendant had therefore been in breach of its s.188 duty from 20 November 2023 by continuing to provide B&B accommodation beyond six weeks.

The court rejected the claimant's separate grounds under the Equality Act 2010 (PSED) and s.11 Children Act 2004: the evidence did not establish that the child was a protected person under the EqA, and the authority had given adequate process and attention to the child's welfare. The remedy discussion applied the Supreme Court's guidance in R (Imam) v Croydon BC on mandatory orders: authorities must show they have taken all reasonable steps to perform their statutory duties, and lack of resources is not an automatic bar to relief. Because the defendant made a s.184 decision and offered non-B&B accommodation from 22 April 2024, the court did not make a mandatory order in the terms originally contemplated.

The claimant applied for judicial review challenging the suitability of Bed and Breakfast (B&B) accommodation provided by the defendant local housing authority under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. She sought declarations and mandatory relief on three grounds: (i) that the Hotel was unsuitable under s.188 HA and the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 (the '2003 Order'); (ii) breach of the public sector equality duty under s.149 Equality Act 2010 in respect of her son's health conditions; and (iii) breach of s.11 Children Act 2004 in relation to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of her child.

The court framed the key legal issues as: (a) to which applicants the 2003 Order applies; (b) when and for how long B&B accommodation can be suitable under Part VII HA; and (c) when a mandatory order requiring provision of non-B&B accommodation is appropriate following R (Imam) v Croydon BC.

On facts admitted or evidenced in the proceedings, the claimant and her nine-year-old son had been accommodated in a hotel (conceded to amount to B&B accommodation under the Order) from 9 October 2023. The defendant accepted a limited homelessness relief duty (s.189B) early on and maintained the family in the Hotel because it had no other accommodation available. The claimant argued that the Hotel was unsuitable for the child because of allergies and that the defendant had failed to give proper consideration to EqA and s.11 duties.

The court analysed the statutory framework (notably ss.175, 176, 184, 188, 189, 189B, 190, 193, 206 and 210 HA) and secondary legislation (the 2003 Order) and concluded: the 2003 Order is a deeming instrument under s.210(2) HA that treats B&B accommodation as not suitable for applicants with 'family commitments' (which maps onto the s.189(1)(a)-(b) categories) except where no non-B&B alternative is available and then only up to a maximum of six weeks. The judge held that the child actually 'resided' with the claimant and thus the 2003 Order applied; because no non-B&B accommodation was available the 6-week exception applied but had been exceeded. Accordingly the provision of B&B accommodation beyond 6 weeks amounted to a breach of the s.188 duty to secure suitable accommodation from 20 November 2023.

The court dismissed the EqA ground because the child's disability was not proved on the available evidence and, even assuming engagement, the authority had given appropriate consideration and had provided mitigating measures (a microwave and limited family stays) so no breach of PSED or duty to make reasonable adjustments was made out. The s.11 CA ground failed because the authority had identified and considered the child's welfare and there was evidence of strategic steps to expand temporary accommodation provision.

On relief the court applied the R (Imam) principles: an authority facing an application for a mandatory order must show it has taken all reasonable steps to comply with its duty and explain its budgetary and housing position. The judge indicated he would have made a mandatory order to secure non-B&B accommodation within a limited deferral period, but because the defendant subsequently made a s.184 decision and agreed to provide non-B&B accommodation from 22 April 2024, a mandatory order was not made in those terms.

Claim allowed in part. The court held that the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003 applied to the claimant and her dependent child and that B&B accommodation became legally unsuitable once occupation exceeded six weeks; the defendant therefore breached its s.188 Housing Act 1996 duty from 20 November 2023. The claimant's Equality Act 2010 (PSED) and s.11 Children Act 2004 grounds were dismissed. The court exercised its discretion on relief in the light of R (Imam); it did not make the mandatory order originally contemplated after the defendant made a s.184 decision and agreed to offer non-B&B accommodation from 22 April 2024.