R(Idolo) v LB Bromley [2020] EWHC 860 (Admin)

Summary

This case concerned the relationship between the duties owed by councils under the Housing Act 1996 and the Care Act 2014. It was accepted that the Claimant was eligible for support under the Care Act 2014. The council provided this but had failed to provide him with suitable alternative accommodation. Judicial Review proceedings were issued on the basis that the delay in providing the suitable accommodation amounted to a breach of the duties owed under the Care Act 2014. The Claimant also sought damages for breach of his human rights under Article 8.

The Judge held that the council had not breached its duties under the Care Act 2014. The duty to rehouse was owed under the Housing Act 1996. There was a boundary between the two Acts. Acts. Although the council had been slow to provide suitable accommodation this did not amount to a breach of statutory duty under either Act.

The Judge held following Anufrijeva v London Borough of Southwark – [2004] QB1124 that liability to pay damages did not arise because of arguable maladministration but only where the council had acted in a more culpable manner showing a lack of respect and which gave rise to severe consequences.

It is significant that it would appear that the Claimant had not made an application for accommodation under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and that by the time of the hearing for the case he had been provided with suitable accommodation and was only seeking declaratory relief and damages.

Law Reports

Bailii

Articles About The Case


Back to the Top