Judge tells claimant in homelessness case to pursue s.202 review, not judicial review

Rory Dunlop KC, sitting as a deputy High Court Judge, said he could not consider applicant the claimant’s complaint, nor entertain points that had not been pleaded.

The claimant sought to review what she said was Bromley’s “ongoing failure to comply with duties under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, sections 189A, 193, and 210, and the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, including breach of section 11 of the Children Act 2004 and Article 8 ECHR”.

The court heard the claimant is a single parent with chronic physical and mental health conditions, constituting protected characteristics, and has a 12-year-old daughter.

They were due to become homeless when their landlady wished to sell the property in which they lived.

But on the same day that the claim form was filed, Bromley offered accommodation and submitted this made the claim academic.

Bromley offered a two-bedroom first floor flat in Croydon. The claimant visited but said the heating was not on and the flat was cold and she did not think she and her daughter could live there.

The claimant then made a witness statement, but no application to amend her claim form or statement of facts and grounds, although it was “clear from her reply and her statement that the claimant wished to argue that the Croydon flat was not suitable”, Mr Dunlop said.

A Bromley officer then visited the Croydon flat and found its facilities in working order.

The claimant had meanwhile been evicted and applied to Bromley as ‘street homeless’ and was accommodated in a  hotel.

Mr Dunlop said: “The pleaded claim is academic. The grounds of claim were drafted on the basis that [Bromley] had not offered any accommodation (suitable or otherwise). On the very day when the claim was filed, [Bromley] offered accommodation to the claimant (the Croydon flat), at that stage on an interim basis.

“Matters moved on yet further when, by letter of 3 November 2025, [Bromley] accepted the full housing duty under s.193 of the Act. By letter of 5 December 2025 the [Bromley] offered the Croydon flat again, this time pursuant to that s.193 duty.

“It follows that the complaints set out in the statement of facts and grounds are historic. They have been overtaken by events.”

The deputy judge said no grounds arose for him to exercise his discretion to determine an academic case. Nor would he make a declaration when this served no practical purpose.

He said the claimant’s decision not to add concerns about the Croydon flat to her claim prevented him considering it.

But Mr Dunlop said: “The second and even greater obstacle is that there is an adequate alternative remedy to judicial review for this complaint – i.e. an application for review under s.202 of the Act and, if unsuccessful, an appeal to the county court under s.204 of the Act.”

He said that although the claimant did not trust Bromley to carry this out, the council had asked the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to review the case. Bromley contracts out its s.202 reviews to the Royal Borough.

Mr Dunlop said that while there might be shortcomings to the Croydon flat this independent review “may help both parties resolve the issues between them and save time and public money in the long run”.

He added: “I hope that the claimant will reconsider moving into the Croydon flat, at least while she attempts to pursue a s.202 review. However, ultimately, that is the claimant's choice.”

Mark Smulian