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 Imam, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Croydon (2023) UKSC 45 (our note).

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Tower Hamlets had made six offers of other properties, but each was (and accepted to be) unsuitable and withdrawn.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

The first factor, contingency, did not arise.

The second factor is that the court cannot create an encouragement for a local authority to ignore its statutory duty. Tower Hamlets argued it had made offers, so was not sitting on its hands, but the Court noted the pattern of unsuitable offers and said that not checking the suitability of properties offered was in the effect the same as sitting on its hands.

The third factor was the impact of the breach on the claimant. It was difficult to imagine a claimant with  greater needs, being in effect housebound and at risk. The matter was of the utmost urgency.

ON the fourth factor, there was an imperative to galvanise the local authority to take adequate steps, given the hsitory of unsuitable offers and the lack of progress since December 2024.

On the fifth factor, unfairness to others, Tower Hamlet’s witness statement referred to other families in need of accommodation, but gave no reasons why a mandatory order would result in unfairness to others, or why it would give undue priority to the claimant. The mandatory order would be for suitable accommodation, not that it be a perfect long term solution.

Ordered –  Tower Hamlets had three weeks to provide suitable accommodation, as a mandatory order.