High Court judge issues mandatory order requiring council to provide family with accommodation near hospital where child is being treated

Jonathan Glasson KC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, also made a declaration that the council has been in breach of its statutory duty under s.193(2) of the 1996 Act from 15 May 2025.

The claimant challenged RBKC’s failure to secure accommodation for his family, and the authority accepted it had been in breach of the duty leaving the court to decide only on relief.

The claimant lives in a privately rented flat with his wife and two children, one of whom has been diagnosed with a rare condition, congenital central hypoventilation syndrome PHOX2B mutation.

The court was told the child requires a ventilator when sleeping, which his parents must monitor closely during the night to ensure that there is no malfunction as the usual safeguards to control breathing are impaired in his case.

The consultant treating the child stated it was “imperative” that he lived within reach of both the Chelsea and Westminster and the nearby Royal Brompton hospitals, the court heard.

The claimant suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and a medical statement said this had been aggravated by the council’s failure to find the family accommodation when faced with eviction from a private sector dwelling.

After a series of interactions with RBKC, the claimant complained to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman saying the council had delayed assessing his housing needs, did not tell him he could join the housing register during his homelessness assessment, did not provided temporary accommodation despite his landlord taking steps to evict him and did not allow him to challenge a medical assessment.

The Ombudsman upheld the complaint and recorded an ‘agreed action’ that RBKC would carry out within one month including offering the claimant suitable temporary accommodation.

Although the council accepted it owed the claimant the main housing duty under section 193(2) of the 1996 Act the accommodation offered was in Cricklewood and so further than the distance from the hospitals recommended by the son’s doctors. It later accepted this accommodation was not suitable.

RBKC said there was a shortage of suitable private rented accommodation to which the family could move but Mr Glasson said: “There is a paucity of evidence as to the steps taken by the defendant subsequently to secure suitable accommodation for the claimant since it was accepted that the property in [Cricklewood] was not suitable.”

Mr Glasson concluded that to decline declaratory relief in the circumstances “would be inconsistent with the principle that where a breach of law is established the ordinary position is that a remedy should be granted”.

He added: “In my judgment in the circumstances of this case it is appropriate to grant declaratory relief.”

The deputy judge said the onus was on RBKC to explain why a mandatory order should not be made.

“There is insufficient evidence before me to conclude that a mandatory order would serve no purpose as suitable temporary accommodation is likely to be provided shortly,” he said.

Mr Glasson gave the council one month to suitably accommodate the family within 45 minutes of the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, saying RBKC had “not sufficiently explained why a mandatory order should not be made to ensure that it complies with its duty and had submitted  insufficient evidence that it had taken all reasonable steps to fulfil its duty under s.193(2) of the 1996 Act”.

Mark Smulian