AA was a homeless person owed the main housing duty by a London Borough (LB) since 2020. She had three sons, one of whom has autism spectrum disorder, a learning disability, ADHD, global developmental delay, and PICA, a condition that causes individuals to eat non-food items. He is non-verbal and displays challenging behaviour. Another of her sons also has autism spectrum disorder and chromosome abnormalities, as well as speech and sleep disorders, and struggles with communication. AA herself suffered from depression and sciatica, a condition that causes severe pain and significantly impacts her mobility.

Despite their needs, the family was placed in a two-bedroom temporary accommodation on the second floor of a building accessible only by stairs.

We were instructed in May 2023 and requested a review of the suitability of AA’s temporary accommodation. In June 2023, LB accepted that the property was unsuitable but failed to inform either us or AA. It was only after we submitted a formal complaint that we were notified on 30 November 2023 that LB had accepted that the accommodation was unsuitable and had placed AA on a transfer list.

We proceeded to send LB pre-action correspondence, notifying that judicial review proceedings would commence if suitable temporary accommodation was not provided immediately. LB did not respond, prompting us to issue judicial review proceedings on 5 March 2024, which included an urgent application for an order requiring LB to provide suitable temporary accommodation.

On 21 March 2024 the Administrative Court granted permission to judicially review LB’s:

1. failure to provide suitable temporary accommodation,
2. failure to conduct a lawful housing needs assessment, and
3. operation of an unpublished, internal temporary accommodation allocation scheme in breach of the PSED.

The Court also granted a mandatory interim order requiring LB to secure suitable interim accommodation for AA and her family within 21 days. LB failed to comply with this order and did not secure suitable accommodation. As a result, we issued a contempt application against LB and its director of housing. Following a direction hearing in respect of the contempt application, LB proceeded to make AA a final offer of permanent social housing: a four-bedroom house with a garden. However, the property required extensive renovations.

The final hearing of the judicial review was scheduled for November 2024. Before the hearing, the renovation work on the property was completed, and AA signed the tenancy agreement, moving in with her children. The judicial review proceedings and the contempt application were subsequently settled, with LB agreeing to cover the costs of both proceedings.

This matter was conducted by Claire Wiles, Joint Head of the Housing Team.