Ejowhokoghene Ubiribo v Notting Hill Genesis

The claimant applied for urgent interim relief by way of an injunction to restrain the allocation of premises at 216 Dalling Road and sought various alternative interim remedies (including rehousing or re-banding to Band A). The court declined to grant any interim mandatory relief, concluding that to order rehousing or to impose a Band A designation at the pre-claim stage would in practice decide the substantive issue and was not justified on the material before the court.

The judge emphasised relevant factual points relied on by the claimant, in particular medical evidence from Dr Patel (28.10.24) concerning dangerous living conditions and a confirmed allergy to Cladosporium mould on the part of the claimant's eldest son. The judge noted procedural concerns about disclosure and communications (including a Now Medical report of 13.12.24, a decision communicated on 9/10 January 2025, and NHG's allocation of Dalling Road on 13.1.25).

Directions: the judge made detailed directions for a pre-claim judicial review claim to be filed (Form N461, grounds, witness statement with chronology, indexed bundle) and for the defendant to file an acknowledgement of service, response and disclosure within specified time limits so that the papers can be considered (and, if appropriate, a rolled-up hearing directed).

The claimant, a long-term tenant of the defendant housing provider, sought urgent interim injunctive relief in January 2025. Her residence at 21b Westville Road was said to suffer from long-standing damp and mould; matters of disrepair had been pursued since 2014 and an open offer including compensation had been made in July 2024. The claimant had been designated Band B under the defendant's allocation scheme and sought re-banding to Band A. She relied on medical evidence, notably a letter dated 28 October 2024 from Dr Anika Patel describing urgent, hazardous conditions and referring to an allergy test showing a confirmed allergy to Cladosporium mould in the claimant's eldest son.

The claimant sought (i) an injunction to restrain the allocation of 216 Dalling Road to any other tenant and (ii) alternative interim relief including provision of alternative or temporary accommodation or urgent re-banding. By the time of the hearing the Dalling Road property had been let on 13 January 2025, and the claimant did not pursue that head of relief.

The issues before the court were whether interim relief should be granted at the pre-claim stage, whether the court should order mandatory relief such as rehousing or re-banding, and whether the defendant's decisions and disclosure practices required scrutiny at this stage. The court considered the relevance of public law principles to private registered providers, referenced the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010, and noted authorities on judicial review of allocation decisions.

The judge declined to make a mandatory interim order. The principal reasons were that an order requiring rehousing or re-banding would, in effect, determine the core substantive question and that the paper stage did not provide a sufficiently crystallised position. The judge recorded procedural concerns about disclosure and the timing of communications, and emphasised the defendant's duty of candid disclosure. The court made detailed directions for the claimant to file a claim for judicial review with supporting grounds, witness evidence and indexed bundle, and for the defendant to file a response and disclosure within fixed time limits so that the matter can be considered promptly and, if appropriate, a rolled-up hearing ordered.

The urgent application for interim relief is refused. The judge concluded that mandatory relief (rehousing or re-banding) should not be granted at the pre-claim stage because such orders would, in practice, dispose of the substantive dispute and the current papers did not justify that course. Instead, the court gave detailed directions for the claimant to commence judicial review proceedings and for the defendant to respond and disclose relevant materials so that the claim can be considered on the papers or, if appropriate, at a rolled-up hearing.