This is copied from the Nearly Legal Blog and added to- For the original Nearly Legal Post Link See Here

See also

https://osborneslaw.com/case-studies/rehouse-housebound-woman/ - from Osbournes Solicitors

R (ex parte AIN) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets. High Court (Admin) 29 April 2025 (Unreported elsewhere. We have a full note of judgment (unapproved) from the claimant’s solicitors, Osbornes Law, for which we are grateful). It is interesting in its treatment of the ‘five factors’ for consideration in making a mandatory order set out in Elkundi and Others v Birmingham City Council 2022

Those factors are set out at paragraph 67 of the judgment in Imam. They are:-

1. Whether the council has a contingency fund for dealing with unexpected expenditure and if so why it has not been used to provide accommodation to this applicant
2. The Court cannot create an encouragement for the council to ignore its statutory duties. The longer the council has “sat on its hands” and failed to comply with its mandatory duty the more likely the court will be to make a mandatory Order.
3. The impact of the failure to provide accommodation on the applicant
4. Whether there is any sign that the council is taking steps to provide accommodation.
5. The need to avoid being unfair to others who may also need accommodation.

This was the judgment on an application for interim relief in a judicial review claim on Tower Hamlets leaving AIN in unsuitable accommodation under section 193 Housing Act 1996, despite accepting on review that the property was unsuitable in February 2023.

Tower Hamlets had made six offers of other properties, but each was (and accepted to be) unsuitable and withdrawn.

AIN had complex physical and mental health needs and is disabled. She cannot leave the temporary accommodation unaided. . In April 2022 there was a fire, and the AIN had to be carried out. As the judgment notes, she feels trapped in her home and has worsening PTSD as a result,

This claim was issued in December 2024. Tower Hamlets were asked to provide a statement on progress in February 2025, but did not do so. AIN sought interim relief in the form of a mandatory order that Tower Hamlets provide suitable accommodation, on the basis that the case was urgent in view of AIN’s deteriorating condition and the threat to her safety.

Tower Hamlets argued that they had taken reasonable steps to secure suitable accommodation and the hearing should be adjourned.

The Court (Deputy High Court Judge Alegre) turned to the Imam five factors.