Residents’ rights: protestors from Housing Action outside the Supreme Court for the hearing in May
By STEVEN DOWNES
The Supreme Court yesterday threw out Croydon Council’s defence, after a case brought by a homeless disabled woman finally reached the conclusion that the local authority really does have to deliver on its statutory responsibilities, however badly managed the council might be.
Wheelchair-bound Croydon mother Ruba Imam has been trying, since 2014, to get Croydon Council to provide her with accommodation suitable for the needs of her three children and herself.
Yet, rather than do what it is legally supposed to do, Croydon Council – under three different chief executives, countless heads of housing and three different political administrations – opted to squander potentially millions of pounds of public money on a legal case which it eventually lost in the highest court of the land.
Croydon Council decided that Imam’s temporary accommodation was unsuitable as long ago as June 2015. She was still stuck in the same unsuitable accommodation seven years later, when her case reached the Appeal Court.
Imam’s case had been taken up by Crisis, the homelessness charity, and some pro bono lawyers. After she won her case at the Court of Appeal, the council opted to prolong the agony – and expense – and took the case to the Supreme Court.
That hearing in early May was before Law Lords Lloyd-Jones, Sales, Leggatt, Richards and Burnett. Yesterday, they handed down a unanimous judgement against Croydon Council.
The 29-page judgement can be found here.
Basically, all local authorities are required, under Section 193(2) of the Housing Act 1996, to ensure that suitable housing is available to a person who is eligible for assistance.
Croydon admitted it had failed to fulfil its duty under the law, “but contends that by reason of severe budgetary constraints and limits to the stock of properties available for housing assistance it ought not to be ordered to provide a property to Ms Imam, suitable for her complex needs, with immediate effect.
“Croydon says that at the very least it should be given a period of grace to allow it to find a suitable property out of its limited resources.” Awww. Poor Croydon Council…
The council’s very well-paid solicitors, Browne Jacobson, with a KC and assistant in court, all paid for from the borough’s Council Tax, made this piss-poor argument that it needed more time some eight years after Imam’s housing provision had been admitted as unsatisfactory.
As the Appeal Court found last year, “The local housing authority, the London Borough of Croydon… accepted that it was in breach of its duty as it had failed to secure that suitable accommodation was available for occupation by the respondent, Mrs Imam.” Our italics, for emphasis.
The Supreme Court laid out the facts of the case as:
“The respondent is disabled within the meaning of S6 of the Equality Act 2010. The appellant, a local housing authority, has provided the respondent housing since 2014. The appellant accepts that (a) the property provided is not suitable accommodation, within the meaning of the 1996 Act; and (b) it is in breach of S193(2) of the 1996 Act by not offering suitable alternative accommodation.” Again, our italics.
Money no object: despite overseeing a bankrupt council, CEO Katherine Kerswell must have approved taking case to the Supreme Court
“The respondent judicially reviewed the appellant’s failure to provide suitable alternative accommodation. In the High Court, the Deputy Judge declined to exercise his discretion to award a mandatory injunction to require the appellant to provide suitable alternative accommodation.
“In the Court of Appeal, this decision was overturned on the basis that the Deputy Judge had wrongly taken into account budgetary constraints imposed on the local housing authority in the exercise of his discretion and in the analysis of the steps taken by the authority to fulfil its statutory duty.”
But still the council, and its legal team, thought it would be a good idea to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
It seems very likely that the decision to continue to pursue this case, when the council has already admitted that it is in the wrong, will have been sanctioned by Stephen Lawrence-Orumwense, Croydon’s senior legal official, and backed up by Katherine Kerswell, the £192,474 per year chief executive, and signed off by the borough’s Tory Mayor, Jason “Mr 15per cent” Perry.
Croydon Council, or rather the Council Tax-payers of the borough, could now be expected to pick up hefty bills for the costs of Imam’s legal team.
According to Imam’s civil rights lawyers at Doughty Street Chambers, “It is the first case on the issue of mandatory relief in public law proceedings to be heard by the Supreme Court, or any UK court.
“It considered when and how a court should make an order to enforce a local authority’s duty to secure suitable accommodation when it in in breach. The case therefore goes to the heart of individuals’ ability to give meaningful effect to their rights and entitlements under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1996.
“Rejecting Croydon’s appeal the Supreme Court held that the court at first instance had been wrong to refuse a mandatory order on the basis of budgetary constraints of a generalised nature.
“The starting point was that Croydon is subject to a public law duty imposed by Parliament by statute which is not qualified in any relevant way by reference to the resources available to Croydon.
Pro bono: Martin Westgate KC, of Doughty Street Chambers, who made the case for Imam
“In principle, 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.
“For constitutional reasons to do with the authority of Parliament, the general position is that 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.
“It is not for the court to examine the position with a view to possibly arriving at a contrary conclusion. Nor is a court entitled to dilute a clear statutory duty by reference to its own view of the resources available; nor may it absolve an authority in any general way from complying with such a duty by reason of the insufficiency (in the court’s opinion) of the resources available to it.”
So there.
‘Croydon’s housing service has not been good enough’
Yesterday, Browne Jacobson issued a statement which tried to claim that the Justices’ judgement was in some way a vindication.
Browne Jacobson, or “BJ” as they are known in some legal quarters, actually employ someone whose job title is described as “Senior PR Executive”, whose wages are paid, in part at least, by Croydon Council Tax. Which is nice.
It was they who sent out a press release yesterday in which BJ simpered: “Lord Sales… gave a landmark judgement giving clarity for local authorities and helping to stem the tide of claims for mandatory orders against those authorities.” Which is one way of looking at it…
Council lawyer: Victoria Searle, of council-funded Browne Jacobson
“The main housing duty is immediate, non-deferable, and unqualified. However, it is not a duty to provide accommodation immediately; it is a duty to secure accommodation with a reasonable period of time.” BJ’s emphasis. They fail to advise on the definition of “reasonable period of time”. Our guess is that nine years is not reasonable.
According to Victoria Searle, an associate at BJ: “This judgement will bring sighs of relief from many local authorities.”
That can only be a view if she, and her clients at Croydon Council, cling to the hope that the Supreme Court ruling that providing housing without being “unfair” to others on the waiting list might, in some way, justify keeping Imam and her family waiting for a suitable home for nearly a decade.
Inside Croydon put a series of questions to Croydon Council, including who has been responsible for the last two years for continuing to pursue this case to the Supreme Court?
We also asked whether anyone within the council will be facing any form of disciplinary action for continuing to pursue this case, or whether anyone has resigned from their jobs for their part in continuing to pursue this case.
We also invited Jason Perry to offer an explanation for why, in his time as Mayor since May 2022, he had allowed the council to continue this legal pantomime to try to escape from its legal duties.
We got no response from part-time Perry, but a spokesperson for Croydon Council said, ““We fully accept the findings of the judgement and apologise for the impact the situation has had on our resident.
“We are continuing to make every effort to secure alternative suitable accommodation as quickly as possible.
“Like other London boroughs, Croydon faces huge demand for homes, particularly where residents have complex needs. Given the shortage of suitable housing in London, this often means a difficult balance between the needs of our residents who are homeless and our current tenants who need alternative accommodation.
“We recognise that Croydon’s housing service in recent years has not been good enough.
“Whilst it will take time, we have introduced a detailed housing improvement plan to transform the service we provide our communities.”
Croydon Council has issued no press release of its own and published nothing on its own website about this “landmark” legal judgement, on which it spent so much public money pursuing. Funny that…
Read more: How blind man took on the council – and won £66,000 in costs
Read more: Home owner’s victory after four-year battle with planners
Read more: ‘You seem to be trying to put the genie back in the bottle’
Read more: Bankrupt council paid firm of solicitors £2m over two years
- Inside Croydon – as seen on TV! – has been delivering local community news since 2010. 3million page views per year in 2020, 2021 and 2022.
- If you want real journalism, actually based in the borough, you should consider paying for it. Please sign up today. Click here for more details
- If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, or want to publicise your residents’ association or business, or if you have a local event to promote, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
As featured on Google News Showcase
- Our comments section on every report provides all readers with an immediate “right of reply” on all our content
Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network
- Inside Croydon works together with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as well as BBC London News and ITV London
ROTTEN BOROUGH AWARDS: Croydon was named among the country’s rottenest boroughs for a SIXTH successive year in 2022 in the annual round-up of civic cock-ups in Private Eye magazine
When one of my son’s neighbours sold his house in Croydon, he was pleased to sell to a housing association as he had fitted a lift for his late wife and he hoped that would be valuable to a disabled tenant. As soon as he left the lift was removed so that a family of four could be accommodated.
It’s downright DISGUSTING that ALL of these consecutive council members have decided to appeal this and WASTE OUR COUNCIL TAX,
INSTEAD OF DOING THE RIGHT THING!?
Have you ALL, TAKEN LEAVE OF YOUR SENSES!!!
WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON IN THAT SODDING BUILDING?
Do you all leave your morals at the door?
You should All be ASHAMED of yourselves.
STOP FLEECING US, AND TAKE YOUR JOB SERIOUSLY!
Can you try to be less shouty next time?
And no anonymous posts please
So the council thought they were in some way exempt from the law of the land? Why?
Another example of the Council being morally bankrupt. Furthermore, how bad does the legal advice, both internally and externally, have to be before there is a change of personnel.
Why did Croydon council fight this case for all these years instead of giving the woman a proper home? As Ali G would put it, is it because she is black?
How many other legal battles are being fought right now by our council at our expense against people in need to try and deny them what they’re legally entitled to?
Having read the 29 page judgement, majority of precedent rendered are BAME sounding names. Is this a case of instiutional racism here?
What a bunch of merchant bankers.. how much has this all cost, in legal fees etc etc?
Maybe the cost of a suitable property for this poor person, too much anyway
Indeed. It would be very interesting to know exactly how much Croydon Council’s legal fees have been on “fighting” this case. Maybe we (us Croydon Tax payers) need to serve a FOI request to find out. What as waste…….and poor Ruba Imam and her family have in the meantime “suffered” eight years of distress and inconvenience. Disgraceful!
Already in process…
Is Lord Leggatt formerly of Sue, Grabbit and Runne?
I agree that this should not have been taken so far, nor at such cost to the purse of a bankrupt borough.
But I would take a different perspective of this case and what it has achieved.
Frankly from the Council point of view this was a win win situation.
They have inescapable task one the one hand given to them by Central Government that also made delivery a statutory duty but failed to fund them to do this task. And on the other hand the same Central Government they were allowed to borrow stupidly from without an ability to pay who now wanted that money back to clear debts caused by their own profligacy and stupidity and was unwilling to behave like a reputable lender and more like a loanshark not so much on the high interest but with punitive actions injurious to health and squeezing those not culpable with a 15% vig.
(Apologies for the analogy. I am sure our Government is not a mafia cartel and perhaps did not intend to look like one by its actions but it does portay the reality quite well)
The Judges all agreed that
“The central issue on the appeal is whether, and if so in what way, limits on the
resources of a local housing authority should affect the exercise of a court’s discretion
as to the remedy to be granted when the authority is in breach of its duty under section
193(2) of the Act (“section 193(2)”).”
This decision is incredibly important with so many S114s due to lack of Central Government funding out there and more to come across England and perhaps Wales also.
This can be a tool to go back to Central Government and say you need to fund housing better to cater for the impact of this, not in 8 years or some indeterminate time but now within a year or two at most.
This today gives 70 Councillors and a hapless Mayor a lever to improve not just Iman and her familys conditons but everyone in like situations in Croydon and England.
But if one takes the view that the decision lets them of the hook, they might want to consider carefully what the next case before the Supreme Court could engender.
Courts do not take kindly to those that abuse authority especially after having delivered a balanced judgement and told both parties and the high court to rethink where they are going.
I would expect ALL Councillors in Croydon to consider this judgement and come forward with a plan and give the Mayor a cross party mandate to negotiate a better funding agreement and at least some emergency funding to alleviate housing pressures whilst longer term solutions are worked up.
So perversely Croydon Council may have done themselves and every other Council a service by taking this so far. But only if they take this decision in good faith and seek positively workable solutions. More to the point begin communicating with its residents openly and obtain their support also in that endevour, nothing like a few hundred thousand all voting at next years election for the party that has a plan to resolve this area. Now imagine that in every Authority.
If any Political Party wants to achieve an increase in seats this is an area that will gain those votes
Conversely that this should ever have gone to the Supreme Court was a waste of our money and all taxpayers money for something that should have beeen a no brainer ight from the start.
That it was not, may be a case to simplify legislation and remove ambiguity or just hire better public officers.
Overall I do believe in this case the benefit may be worth the cost. So a big thank you to Iman’s team and those doing the pro bono work.
And also to Croydon Council for taking the risk and getting some clarity, use the judgement well and improve or ignore it to save and deteriorate. Your choice – Ours comes next year.
No wonder they are turning roads that I’ve been driving down for years into residential only access with fines if you’re not a resident. I’ve probably paid for the legal fees on my own.
Wrong. The proceeds from the selfish polluting anti-social rat-runner tax can only be spent on transport schemes like highways maintenance work and funding for concessionary travel.
It’s not a tax. No one has to pay it. The charge is only payable if you’re too lazy to walk or use public transport, or too stupid that you drive a polluting vehicle in the charge zone.
Nothing surprises me with this council. I’m still fighting to get my autistic son who’s nearly 16 his own bedroom as he’s still sharing with his nearly 15 year old sister. Croydon council use a gp who is not trained in autism to do the medical. I can’t afford to take them to court.
Contact the same lawyer so handled the above case pro-bono.
Martin Westgate KC, of Doughty Street Chambers
You can look them up by searching “Doughty Street Chambers”.
Unless Croydon council is dragged through the judicial system, they would not act and leave their tenants rotting.
I agree. Shameful case. Doughty chambers is a very strong set. Contact Martin Westgate’s clerk direct or the senior clerk if need be, by email. The press is very strong too
It doesn’t surprise me at all.
It truly is utter chaos within Croydon Council. I lived in a HMO (assisted living in Rutland Gardens) and was forced to vacate as the landlord and the service provider had issues – the service provider simply pocketed the money and never paid the landlord. The landlord approached Croydon Council directly but there were no takers. As a result, I was forced to relocate outside the borough.
The same landlord offered the council private dwellings with disabled access facilities. Again, the council did not bother to avail this accommodation. Instead, the same landlord is now working with other local authorities to accommodate their disabled tenants and those require assisted living. In the meantime, the tenants that have lived in Croydon for decades are offered placements 100+ miles away. This merry go round circus must end as it affects lives. Why is the cash strapped council wasting money on placement agents instead of procuring adequate accommodation directly from the landlords who actually own their properties? It would not surprise me at all if there are kickbacks or other corruption involved. I am vulnerable and as a result of incompetent lazy officers of Croydon council am forced to adjust to a new environment having been evicted from a place that I loved.
Also to a similar effect was the recent judgment against Croydon Council in the TMX case.