AC-2025-LON-001949 - [2025] EWHC 2425 (Admin)

(B)​ The Factual Background

The Claimant lives in a privately rented flat with his wife, Mrs Fatima Hammad, and their sons, Issa Hammad (date of birth 14 April 2005) and Mikhail Hammad (date of birth 4 November 2008).

Issa has been diagnosed with a learning disability, a communication disorder and mild pulmonary hypertension. He has also been diagnosed with a rare medical condition, congenital central hypoventilation syndrome PHOX2B mutation. Issa requires a BiPAP machine (iVAPS mode via Stella ventilator) at night and is entirely dependent on the ventilator when sleeping. Issa’s parents must monitor Issa closely during the night to ensure that there is no ventilator malfunction or disconnection. The ventilator is crucial to maintain breathing whenever Issa sleeps because breathing can stop during sleep as the usual safeguards to control breathing are impaired.

In letters dated 18 April 2024 and 26 February 2025, Dr Alanna Hare, Consultant in Respiratory Medicine at the Royal Brompton Hospital, stated that it was “imperative” that Issa remained within reach of both Chelsea and Westminster Hospital and the Royal Brompton Hospital for continued specialist medical care and support.

The Claimant himself has health problems in that he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. He has been attending the Woodfield Trauma Service for treatment. A statement from an assistant psychologist at that Trauma Service, dated 4 April 2025, states that “[a] number of [the Claimant’s] symptoms related to his PTSD have also worsened as a result of the council’s handling of his housing case, including his severe depression and suicidality”. An update was provided on 16April 2025 emphasizing the urgency of the Service’s concern for the Claimant’s psychiatric health. It was noted that the Claimant had deteriorated further and that he was now unable to attend therapy or even leave his house.

The Claimant made a homeless application to the Defendant on 5 March 2024, having been served with a notice seeking possession under section 21 Housing Act 1988 by his private sector landlord. There was a delay in dealing with that application and the Claimant made a complaint to the Defendant because of its delay.

In a letter dated 24 May 2024, the Defendant accepted that it had failed to respond within a reasonable timeframe and had failed to maintain contact with the Claimant, and formally apologised.

On 4 June 2024, the Defendant notified the Claimant that it owed him the homelessness prevention duty on the basis that he was threatened with homelessness.

On 11 July 2024, the Claimant applied to go onto the Defendant’s housing register.

The Claimant had made a further complaint on 27 June 2024 as to how his homelessness application was being processed. In a letter dated 30 July 2024, the Defendant apologised to the Claimant. The Defendant stated that it would endeavour to ensure that Issa’s medical needs and proximity to specialist hospitals were considered. It was noted that the Claimant’s housing officer had been asked to request temporary accommodation “immediately” after a possession order was made. It was noted that “[w]e understand the urgency of your situation and the stress and anxiety it has caused for you and your family”.

On 7 March 2025, the court made a possession order in respect of the Claimant’s home under the accelerated procedure and ordered him to pay £460.50 costs. The Claimant was ordered to give up possession on or before 7 April 2025. At the hearing, Mr Nabi informed me that the Claimant’s solicitor had been informed two months ago by the Claimant’s landlord that he was intending to apply for a warrant of possession, but no notice of eviction had yet been received.

On 31 March 2025, the Claimant notified the Defendant of the possession order and asked that temporary accommodation be provided before the 7 April deadline.

The Claimant made a complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (“the Ombudsman”) about the Defendant’s handling of his case. The Claimant said the Council:

Delayed assessing his housing needs after he applied as homeless.

Did not tell him he could join the housing register during his homelessness assessment.

Delayed processing his housing register application after he applied.

Gave incorrect information to his MP by telling them it was in regular communication with him.

Has not provided temporary accommodation despite his landlord taking steps to evict him.

Carried out a medical assessment which he disagreed with and did not allow him to challenge this.

The Ombudsman considered the evidence provided by the Claimant and by the Defendant “as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I sent a draft of this decision to [the Claimant] and the Council and considered comments received in response”. In the Ombudsman’s decision it is stated that the relief duty under the Act was accepted by the Defendant on 1 August 2024 and that the main housing duty was accepted on 23 October 2024. In these proceedings the Defendant disputes those dates but was unable to explain why they were not corrected when the Ombudsman’s decision was sent in draft to it.

In a final decision dated 24 March 2025, the Ombudsman upheld the complaint and found that:

The Defendant had delayed assessing the Claimant’s housing needs after he applied as homeless;

The Defendant had delayed processing his housing register application;

The Defendant had not provided temporary accommodation despite the Claimant’s landlord taking steps to evict him; and

The Defendant had not provided an opportunity for the Claimant to challenge the medical assessment.

At paragraph 53 of the Ombudsman’s decision, the “agreed action” was recorded. The decision states that the Defendant had agreed to carry out a number of steps “within one month” of the Ombudsman’s decision. Critically, it was recorded that the Defendant had agreed to offer the Claimant “suitable temporary accommodation” within one month of the final decision.

In a letter to the Claimant dated 3 March 2025 the Defendant said “[i]n light of these findings, we are very sorry for causing distress at an already stressful time in the lives of you and your family.” The Defendant agreed to pay compensation and the legal costs of the possession proceedings and agreed “to make an offer of suitable temporary accommodation”.

On 15 May 2025, the Defendant informed the Claimant that the relief duty had come to an end and that it accepted that the Claimant was owed the main housing duty under section 193(2) of the 1996 Act.

On 19 May 2025 an offer of accommodation was made of accommodation outside the Borough at 27, Crewys Road, NW2 2BD. On 6 June 2025, Elise Wong, one of the Defendant’s occupational therapists, spoke to Dr Alanna Hare, the consultant treating Issa. Dr Hare explained that any accommodation provided to the Claimant should be a maximum of 45 minutes’ journey time from the Chelsea & Westminster Hospital. In the light of Dr Hare’s advice, the Defendant accepted that the accommodation at 27 Crewys Road was not suitable for the Claimant.