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

Under the Homelessness (Suitability of Accommodation) (England) Order 2003, B&B accommodation is deemed unsuitable for an applicant with family commitments when provided under the interim accommodation duty in section 188 of the Housing Act 1996, subject to the limited exception that no alternative accommodation is available and the stay does not exceed six weeks. The exception is cumulative and does not permit a longer stay merely because alternatives remain unavailable.

An applicant has family commitments where dependent children actually reside with them. The housing authority cannot avoid the Order by treating residence with another parent as preferable, absent a proper statutory decision. After six weeks, non-availability of alternative accommodation is relevant to remedy, but is no defence to breach. A mandatory order remains discretionary and requires evidence that all reasonable steps have been taken.

The claimant applied to Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council as homeless after being excluded from her flat. She and her nine-year-old son were accommodated in a hotel under section 188 of the Housing Act 1996. The hotel had a private bedroom and bathroom, communal cooking facilities and a microwave.

The claimant challenged the accommodation under the 2003 Order, relying on her son’s health conditions, the length of the stay and the absence of self-contained accommodation. She also alleged breaches of the public sector equality duty and the duty to safeguard and promote children’s welfare. By the substantive hearing, she had remained in the hotel for 26 weeks and the Council had made a late decision that she was intentionally homeless.

The central issues were whether the Order applied, whether the son was residing with the claimant for its purposes, whether the Council was in breach of section 188, and whether a mandatory order should be made.

1. Application of the 2003 Order. Article 3 is a deeming provision made under section 210(2) of the Housing Act 1996. It removes the question whether B&B accommodation is suitable from the authority’s ordinary evaluative judgment where the statutory conditions are met. Article 4(1) creates a cumulative exception: no alternative accommodation must be available, and occupation must not exceed six weeks. Resource pressures cannot alter the clear statutory limit.
2. Family commitments. The definition in article 2 tracks the relevant categories of priority need in section 189(1)(a) and (b). The words “reside” and “might reasonably be expected to reside” are alternatives, not cumulative requirements. The claimant’s son was actually residing with her in the hotel. His possible stays with his father did not remove that status. “Family commitments” could not be used to narrow the statutory definition into an obligation to keep the child with the claimant only where no other parent could accommodate him.
3. Breach of section 188. The hotel was B&B accommodation and the claimant and her son fell within the Order. The Council rationally considered that no alternative accommodation was available and that, apart from the Order, the hotel was just within the range of suitable interim accommodation. Nevertheless, from 20 November 2023, six weeks after occupation began, the accommodation was deemed unsuitable. The Council was therefore in breach of its duty under section 188 to secure suitable accommodation.
4. Other grounds. The equality ground failed because the son’s disability was not proved and, in any event, the Council had considered his health conditions and provided a microwave. The section 11 Children Act ground also failed: the evidence showed that the Council had considered the child’s welfare at both individual and strategic levels.
5. Mandatory relief. The principles in R(Imam) apply to section 188 duties. The authority bears the onus of explaining why a mandatory order should not be made and must show objectively that it has taken all reasonable steps. Non-availability after six weeks is relevant to remedy but is not a defence to breach. The Council had not shown that it had explored all three methods in section 206, including use of available stock, securing accommodation from others and advice or assistance to secure it. However, after the Council’s section 184 decision, the section 188 duty ended. The Council agreed to move the claimant and her son to non-B&B accommodation on 22 April 2024. A mandatory order was therefore unnecessary, although it would otherwise have been made until 2 May 2024.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. No appeal history is stated in the judgment.