The Supreme Court in R (on the application of Imam) (Respondent) v London Borough of Croydon (Appellant) [2023] UKSC 45 has unanimously held that general funding pressures are not an excuse for non-compliance with a local authority's duty under s193(2) of the Housing Act 1996 to provide suitable accommodation to a homeless individual.
However, the court should consider a local authority's resources and extent of its housing portfolio when deciding whether to grant a mandatory order rather than some other relief.
The main housing duty applies "where the local housing authority are satisfied that an applicant is homeless, eligible for assistance and has a priority need, and are not satisfied that he became homeless intentionally." [1]
This duty "is owed personally to the individual applicant and gives rise to a correlative right enforceable in judicial review proceedings." #36
"The duty owed is immediate, non-deferrable and unqualified." #37
It is not a mere obligation of conduct. "The duty is directed towards achieving an end result (the provision of suitable accommodation)" #38
Lack of resources is not a valid excuse anymore. Local authorities must be provided with the maximum available resources.
"If resources are inadequate to comply with a statutory duty it is for the authority to use whatever powers it has to raise money...
... or for central government to adjust the grant given to the authority to furnish it with the necessary resources, or for Parliament to legislate to remove the duty or to qualify it by reference to the resources available." #39
The housing duty is justiciable, judicially enforceable.
"The nature of a breach of a legal duty on the authority may be such as to call for the grant of mandatory relief in order to compel the authority to do what it has a clear legal duty to do." #44
Duties imposed by Parliament must be meaningful, and local authorities must be given the resources, and plan accordingly.
"The reason Croydon may not have resources immediately available to comply with a mandatory order will reflect choices it has made in the past regarding...
... use of its general resources; and if it does not have suitable accommodation immediately available, why should it not be expected simply to call on its general resources (perhaps by borrowing money) ...
... to adapt an existing property or to rent or buy a suitable property without delay to add to its stock of immediately available resources and comply with the order in that way?" #51
"Where Parliament imposes a statutory duty on a public authority to provide a specific benefit or service, it does so on the footing that the authority must be taken to have the resources available to comply with that duty." #59
Reasonableness means that the burden of proof lies with the State (the local authority in this case).
"In order to provide the court with reasons to justify the exercise of its discretion not to make such an order, ...
... the authority has to provide a detailed explanation of the situation in which it finds itself and why this would make it impossible to comply with an order." #53
State responsibility and the judicial remedial action will partly depend on the passing of time.
"The court cannot provide encouragement for what would amount to a settled position of the authority to act in disregard of the duty imposed on it by Parliament...
... The longer an authority with notice of the problem has sat on its hands, the more important it may be for the court to enforce the law by making a mandatory order rather than marking the unlawfulness of the authority’s conduct by making a quashing order or declaration." #67
The right-holder matters:
"If the impact on [the individual] of the failure to comply with it is very serious and their need is very pressing, this may justify the court in issuing a mandatory order despite the wider potentially disruptive effects it may have." #68
