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

The evidence on securing suitable accommodation

Ms Peterkin’s evidence explains that the Defendant (in common with other authorities in London and further afield) faces significant challenges in procuring temporary accommodation for applicants owed the main housing duty under section 193(2) of the 1996 Act. There is currently a severe shortage of available and affordable temporary accommodation.

Ms Peterkin explains that the Defendant prioritises groups for moves to temporary accommodation in the following way:

Domestic abuse;

Family in hotel;

Households with people with disabilities or in poor health and in need of adapted properties;

Households with children who are in severely overcrowded accommodation; and

Households where the landlord requires the return of the accommodation.

The Claimant falls within the third category.

Ms Peterkin states that market rents for accommodation significantly exceed local housing allowance (LHA) levels. The subsidy the Defendant receives from the Government for temporary accommodation is below LHA levels outside central London. Although the subsidy received for temporary accommodation inside central London is higher than LHA levels, it is still below market rents.

The Defendant works with temporary accommodation suppliers and has regular meetings with the main suppliers. Ms Peterkin says the Defendant is “constantly trying to take on new units of temporary accommodation as well as retaining existing temporary accommodation”.

The Defendant has a capital programme to purchase properties for use as temporary accommodation. It has recently agreed a new scheme to release funds for the purchase of up to 250 additional units of accommodation.

In his submissions, Mr Peacock drew attention to the Defendant’s Letting Quotas for 2024/2025. He explained that the Defendant has on occasion used its own housing stock held under Part VI of the Act as temporary accommodation provided under Part VII of the Act. It has prioritised households in temporary accommodation in need of urgent transfer under local lettings plans. The Defendant has sought to balance the needs of such households with the needs of its existing tenants who need to be urgently decanted and other vulnerable households on its register for Part VI accommodation. A significant proportion (60% in 2024/25) of the Defendant’s Part VI accommodation is made available to homeless applicants in temporary accommodation.

The Claimant’s solicitor, Mr Panayi, responded to the Defendant’s Detailed Grounds where at paragraph 33 the Defendant stated that it was investigating properties in the private sector. Mr Panayi says that he has checked the website Rightmove for available 3 bedroom properties in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea as well as within the LHA rate area for Central London. He found 33 properties within the Borough and a further 102 within his LHA rate area for central London. In the statement he says:

“Clearly, there are available properties that the Defendant could be securing for the Claimant. It has been nearly 3 months since the offer of Crewys Road, London, NW2 2BD was emailed to me on 19 May 2025. The Defendant is yet to make any further offer of accommodation, despite properties being available and their assertion that they are taking steps to secure the same.”

In her second witness Ms Peterkin responded to this evidence. She cautioned that “[n]ot all private landlords are willing to let their properties through arrangements with local authorities, and therefore the availability of a listing on a property website does not necessarily mean that the property is suitable or accessible to us for use in meeting our statutory duties”. The property would also have to be suitable for the individual’s medical needs.

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 Crewys Road was not suitable.

In Ms Peterkin’s first statement, dated 8 August 2025, she sets out the steps taken by the Defendant in relation to the Claimant’s application at paragraphs 14-19. The final paragraph concludes by referring to the Defendant’s acceptance that the property at 27 Crewys Road will not be suitable. She says the Defendant is “urgently seeking to identify an alternative unit for offer. This will need to be a 3-bed unit within 45 minutes travelling time of the Chelsea and Westminster hospital”. Ms Peterkin provides no explanation as to what steps were being undertaken to identify suitable accommodation.

Ms Peterkin’s second witness statement, dated 22 August 2025, records at paragraph 8 that “[a]s part of the procurement process a property has been identified as being possibly suitable for the Claimant; it is not yet available for allocation but has been earmarked for the offer to the Claimant once it is available, subject to final checks with regard to suitability”. Save for that paragraph there is no further information as to the steps being taken to identify suitable accommodation.

At the end of the hearing, Mr Peacock indicated that he would update the Court if there was any material development in relation to that property (or indeed any other suitable property). On 18 September 2025, in response to a request from the Court, Mr Peacock stated that there was no update to be provided.