Factual and Procedural Background
The Petitioner, originally from Sudan, arrived in the UK in February 2019 with leave to remain. She applied to the Respondent, Glasgow City Council, for assistance as a homeless person. The Respondent accepted on or around 9 September 2019 that it owed duties under sections 29(1)(a) and 31(2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to provide interim and permanent accommodation respectively. Initially, the Petitioner was housed in a one-bedroom flat. After her family arrived in September 2020, the Respondent provided a three-bedroom first floor flat with 16 stairs as interim accommodation. The Petitioner reported mobility difficulties and requested ground or lower-level accommodation. The Respondent made two offers of alternative interim accommodation in October and December 2023, which the Petitioner refused. No offer of permanent accommodation has been made to date.
The Petitioner seeks declarators that the Respondent has breached its statutory duties to provide suitable interim and permanent accommodation and requests an order compelling the Respondent to provide permanent accommodation. The Respondent denies breach, contending it has fulfilled its duties through offers of alternative interim accommodation and efforts to secure permanent housing, and argues that if breach is found, only declarator relief should be granted without a mandatory order.
The court found the Respondent in breach of its duties under sections 29(1)(c) and 31(2) of the 1987 Act and indicated it would make declaratory orders and an order requiring compliance with the duty to provide permanent accommodation, with further submissions invited on the terms of the orders and expenses.
Legal Issues Presented
- Is the Respondent in breach of its duty under section 29(1)(c) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to provide suitable interim accommodation pending permanent accommodation?
- Is the Respondent in breach of its duty under section 31(2) to secure permanent accommodation for the Petitioner?
- If in breach of section 31(2), should the court order the Respondent to make permanent accommodation available to the Petitioner?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The Respondent failed to provide interim accommodation suitable for the household's needs under the 2014 Order, and has been in breach since at least July 2023.
- The Respondent did not properly assess or keep under review the suitability of accommodation, despite the Petitioner's longstanding mobility issues and deteriorating health.
- Alternative offers of interim accommodation were unsuitable and reasonably refused by the Petitioner due to issues such as lack of lift access, inability to live together as a family, and risks related to fire safety and travel.
- The duty to provide permanent accommodation is immediate and non-deferrable, and the Respondent has been in breach since September 2019, having made no offer of permanent accommodation.
- The court has discretion to enforce statutory duties by order, and budgetary constraints alone do not justify refusal to grant mandatory relief.
- The Respondent has not demonstrated it has taken all reasonable steps to secure permanent accommodation or explained why it cannot do so.
Respondent's Arguments
- The Respondent contends it has not breached its duties, as it must only take into account household needs when providing interim accommodation, a matter primarily for its experienced officers to assess.
- Offers of alternative interim accommodation complied with the duty and were reasonable, taking into account the household's needs and proximity to amenities and schools.
- The duty to provide permanent accommodation does not prescribe a specific timescale; a reasonable time period applies depending on circumstances.
- The Petitioner had not made the Respondent aware of accessibility issues until March 2023, and the Respondent has taken reasonable steps within severe budgetary constraints.
- The Respondent has no available suitable five-apartment ground floor properties and must adhere to allocation rules prioritizing households by waiting time.
- An order for specific performance would unfairly prioritize the Petitioner over others and disrupt settled policies and budgets.
- The court should grant declarator relief but decline to make a mandatory order requiring immediate provision of permanent accommodation.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| X v Glasgow City Council [2023 SC 153] |
Distinction between duties under sections 29 and 31; suitability of interim accommodation assessed by local authority officers; Article 4(b) of 2014 Order interpretation. |
Followed to assess suitability of interim accommodation and reasonableness of authority's decisions. |
| R (Elkundi) v Birmingham City Council [2022] QB 604 |
Duty to secure suitable accommodation is immediate and non-deferrable; budgetary constraints do not excuse breach. |
English authority used persuasively to interpret timing and enforcement of duty under section 31(2). |
| R (Imam) v Croydon LBC [2023] 3 WLR 1178 |
Discretionary remedies in public law; factors for granting mandatory orders to enforce housing duties. |
Guided court's discretion on whether to order specific performance of statutory duty. |
| R v Kensington & Chelsea RLBC, ex p. Kujtim (2000) 32 H.L.R. 579 |
Authority discharges duty if suitable accommodation offered and unreasonably refused. |
Applied to assess reasonableness of Petitioner's refusal of alternative interim accommodation offers. |
| Sharif v Camden LBC [2013] UKSC 10 |
Accommodation for homeless households may be provided in multiple units if practical; family must be able to live together in practical terms. |
Considered in assessing whether offers of two separate flats complied with duty. |
| McHattie v South Ayrshire Council 2020 SLT 399 |
Court should be slow to decline to quash unlawful decisions; onus on authority to justify refusal. |
Supported approach to enforcement of statutory duties. |
| Craig v HM Advocate 2022 SC (UKSC) 27 |
Coercive orders often unnecessary but may be appropriate where authority proposes no change. |
Informed discretion to grant mandatory order where Respondent would otherwise not comply. |
| Gallacher v Stirling Council 2001 SLT 94 |
Rules made by registered social landlords for housing allocation are reasonable and must be respected. |
Referenced regarding allocation priorities and discretion. |
| R (Brooks) v The London Borough of Islington [2016] PTSR 389 |
Local authority's duty discharged by offering suitable accommodation; no obligation to keep offers open indefinitely. |
Supported Respondent’s argument on offers of interim accommodation. |
| Aweys v Birmingham City Council [2009] 1 WLR 1506 |
Distinction between duties to provide interim and permanent accommodation; practical realities and reasonableness to be considered. |
Used to interpret duties under sections 29 and 31 and to assess reasonableness of timescales. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court carefully examined the statutory framework under the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, particularly sections 29 and 31, alongside the Homeless Persons (Unsuitable Accommodation) (Scotland) Order 2014. It noted that the duty to provide interim accommodation requires suitability taking into account general household needs but not necessarily meeting all special needs, whereas the duty to provide permanent accommodation requires meeting special needs and avoiding overcrowding.
The court accepted that the Respondent's initial provision of a first floor three-bedroom flat in 2020 was reasonable given the Petitioner's then mobility and household size. However, by March 2023, the Petitioner's health and mobility had deteriorated significantly, and the accommodation became unsuitable, particularly due to inadequate accessibility and overcrowding.
The Respondent was aware of these changes from March 2023 but failed to provide suitable alternative accommodation or permanent housing. The offers of alternative interim accommodation in late 2023 were found to be unsuitable due to factors including lack of lift access, separation of family members, fire safety risks, and excessive travel distances, making the Petitioner's refusal reasonable.
Regarding permanent accommodation, the court acknowledged the severe pressures on housing supply, budgetary constraints, and allocation policies prioritizing households by waiting time. Nonetheless, these factors do not excuse breach of statutory duties. The Respondent had not demonstrated it had taken all reasonable steps to secure permanent accommodation for the Petitioner or explained why it could not exercise its discretion to prioritize her case.
The court considered relevant English authorities on timing and enforcement of housing duties, recognizing the duty to provide permanent accommodation is immediate but allowing for a reasonable period to comply. The elapsed period of over four years without permanent accommodation was deemed unreasonable.
In exercising its discretion on whether to grant a mandatory order requiring the Respondent to provide permanent accommodation, the court balanced the public interest, the Petitioner's pressing needs, and the Respondent's operational constraints. It concluded that declarator relief alone would be insufficient to uphold the rule of law and protect the Petitioner's rights given the absence of any indication that the Respondent would act promptly otherwise.
Holding and Implications
The court sustained the Petitioner's pleas in law and repelled the Respondent's pleas, finding the Respondent in breach of its statutory duties under sections 29(1)(c) and 31(2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.
The court granted declaratory orders to that effect and ordered the Respondent to comply with its duty to provide permanent accommodation to the Petitioner. The court emphasized that budgetary or resource constraints alone do not justify non-compliance with statutory duties. The Respondent bears the onus to demonstrate all reasonable steps have been taken and to explain any impossibility of compliance.
The court reserved further consideration of the precise terms and timescale of the mandatory order and expenses, inviting submissions from the parties. No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts of this case. The decision underscores the court's willingness to enforce housing duties through specific performance orders where necessary to uphold the rule of law and protect vulnerable individuals.