Dua Alkarroum, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hillingdon

A local housing authority’s duty under Housing Act 1996, s 193(2), to secure suitable accommodation is immediate, unqualified and non-deferrable. Although the authority may require a short period to decide how to comply, it remains in breach while the applicant remains in unsuitable accommodation. An authority cannot discharge that duty by offering alternative accommodation which is itself unsuitable.

A statutory review is not an automatic bar to judicial review. The court must assess whether the alternative remedy is adequate, convenient and effective in the circumstances. Where procedural defects, delay and continuing serious hardship make the review route ineffective, the Administrative Court may exercise its residual jurisdiction.

The claimant, a refugee and sole parent with serious health conditions, was owed the main housing duty by the defendant under Housing Act 1996, s 193(2). She remained in two-bedroom temporary accommodation in Uxbridge despite assessments identifying a need for three bedrooms, ground-floor or lift access, storage for medical equipment and proximity to family and hospitals.

The defendant later accepted that the accommodation was unsuitable and made two offers, in Ealing and Slough, both for two-bedroom properties. The claimant challenged the defendant’s failure to secure suitable accommodation, failure adequately to assess location-related needs, and delay in making a discretionary referral to Ealing under s 213. The defendant relied on the statutory review procedure and argued that its duty had ended following rejection of the offers.

1. Ground 2 dismissed. A housing needs assessment must identify the key needs forming the basis of any accommodation offer. Location is a key suitability factor. Although the assessments described proximity to family and hospitals as an aspiration or preference, the material assessment sufficiently identified the claimant’s key space and location requirements in the context of accommodation sought outside the defendant’s borough.
2. Ground 1 allowed. Applying R (Elkundi) v Birmingham CC [2022] QB 604 and Imam, the duty under s 193(2) was immediate, unqualified and non-deferrable. The authority could take only a short period to determine the means of securing suitable accommodation. Reliance on another borough, limited resources or lack of housing stock did not remove or dilute its responsibility.
3. The two offers did not discharge the duty. Both were two-bedroom properties and failed to meet the recognised need for three bedrooms. The Ealing property also lacked proven space for conversion or storage of medical equipment. Moving the family from one unsuitable temporary property to another would compound, rather than remedy, the breach.
4. The statutory review procedure was not an adequate alternative remedy in the circumstances. The Ealing offer was not shown to have been sent and, if sent, misstated the review position. The Slough offer provided less than 15 minutes for acceptance and was made against a background of prolonged delay and continuing unsuitable accommodation. The court therefore exercised its residual judicial-review jurisdiction, applying R(Bano) v Waltham Forest LBC [2025] EWCA Civ 92, R (Ammori v SSHD) [2025] EWHC 2013 (Admin) and R(Glencore Energy UK) v Revenue and Customs [2017] 4 WLR.
5. There was no obligation to make a referral under s 213. The referral power was discretionary, and the evidence did not establish frustration of the statutory purpose. Ground 3 was therefore dismissed.
6. The court granted declaratory relief that the defendant had been and remained in breach of s 193(2). Final consideration of mandatory relief and costs was deferred for one month pending evidence concerning the availability of suitable accommodation and practical compliance.

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