Nabeel-Dib Hammad, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea

A local housing authority’s duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 is immediate, non-deferrable and unqualified. Resource constraints do not modify that duty. Where breach is established, the ordinary position is that relief should be granted.

A mandatory order may be refused only where clearly justified. The authority bears the burden of providing a detailed, case-specific explanation and must show objectively that it has taken all reasonable steps to comply. Generic evidence about housing shortages is insufficient. The court may set a compliance period by reference to the particular circumstances, including the authority’s previous agreement to provide accommodation within a specified period.

The claimant sought judicial review of the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea’s failure to secure accommodation after accepting that it owed him the main housing duty under section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996. The defendant accepted the breach.

The claimant and his family had significant medical and housing needs. Accommodation previously offered outside the borough was accepted to be unsuitable because it was more than 45 minutes from Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. The central issue was what relief should follow, including whether declaratory and mandatory relief should be granted and the appropriate compliance period.

1. Declaratory relief. The defendant accepted that it had breached its section 193(2) duty from 15 May 2025. Although relief in judicial review is discretionary, a claimant who establishes unlawful conduct will normally be entitled to a declaration. Declaratory relief was therefore granted.
2. Mandatory relief. The court applied the principles in R (Imam) v London Borough of Croydon [2023] UKSC 45. The statutory duty is not qualified by the authority’s available resources. The authority bears the onus of explaining why a mandatory order should not be made and must provide a detailed explanation of any alleged impossibility of compliance.
3. The defendant’s evidence concentrated on generic procurement difficulties and did not sufficiently explain the specific steps taken for this claimant. It failed to address why compliance was said to be impossible when it had previously agreed with the Ombudsman to provide suitable temporary accommodation within one month. The defendant therefore failed to establish that it had taken all reasonable steps or that compliance with a mandatory order would be impossible.
4. The court declined both the claimant’s proposed 14-day period and the defendant’s proposed 12-week period. The appropriate period was one month, having regard particularly to the defendant’s earlier agreement. The defendant was ordered to provide suitable three-bedroom accommodation within 45 minutes of Chelsea and Westminster Hospital within one month of the order.
5. Under CPR rule 44.2(8), the defendant was ordered to pay 50% of the claimant’s costs on account within 14 days of receiving a schedule of costs.