Walker v London Borough of Bromley: when judicial review yields to the statutory homelessness appeals process
A homeless mother's challenge dismissed as academic after the Council offered accommodation — and the High Court declines to rule on suitability.
In R (Geraldine Walker) v London Borough of Bromley [2026] EWHC 382 (Admin), Rory Dunlop KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge dismissed a judicial review claim against the London Borough of Bromley, finding that the pleaded grounds had become academic and that the appropriate remedy for the claimant's real grievance — the suitability of the accommodation offered — lay through the statutory review and appeal process under ss.202 and 204 of the Housing Act 1996.
The claimant, a single mother with chronic physical and mental health conditions, applied to Bromley for homelessness assistance in August 2025 after her landlady gave notice to sell. On 5 September 2025, the Council accepted she was eligible for assistance and acknowledged a duty under s.189B to take reasonable steps to help her secure accommodation. No interim accommodation was offered at that stage, prompting a pre-action letter and, on 23 October 2025, a claim for judicial review alleging breach of the ss.188 and 189B duties.
On the same day the claim was filed, Bromley offered the claimant a two-bedroom flat in Croydon. The claimant visited the property, raised concerns — including about the heating and its distance from her daughter's school, medical support network, and social worker — and declined to take the keys. By 3 November 2025, the Council had accepted the full housing duty under s.193. The claimant remained in private rented accommodation until eviction on 2 December, after which she placed her daughter with the child's father and slept in her car. An interim relief order made on 12 December 2025, apparently without the judge having seen the Council's evidence that the boiler was functioning, required Bromley to provide hotel accommodation pending the final hearing.
The judgement
Dunlop KC held that the pleaded claim was academic. The grounds had been drafted on the assumption that no accommodation whatsoever had been offered; by the time the matter came to a substantive hearing, the s.193 duty had been accepted and accommodation remained available. Applying R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Salem [1999] 1 AC 450, the court found no sufficient public interest reason to determine the historic complaints.
The claimant's real grievance — the unsuitability of the Croydon flat — was not only unpleaded but also, and more fundamentally, fell squarely within the alternative remedy provided by Parliament. Relying on R (AB) v Westminster City Council [2024] EWHC 266 (Admin), the judge emphasised that ss.202 and 204 of the 1996 Act constitute the remedy Parliament intended for suitability challenges, and that the Administrative Court should not usurp that jurisdiction save in truly exceptional circumstances. The claimant's concern that the review process would take too long was expressly rejected as an exceptional factor; indeed, the guidance envisages eight-week turnaround, faster than a substantive hearing in this court.
The judgement also noted that the claimant was out of time to request a s.202 review, but recorded that the Council retains a discretion to extend time and expressed the hope it would do so. Given that the suitability checklist had failed to record all the claimant's disabilities, the court observed that an independent review by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea — to whom Bromley contracts out such reviews — might well assist both parties.
The case reinforces that challenges to the suitability of accommodation offered under s.193 belong in the statutory review and county court appeal process, not the Administrative Court. It also illustrates the importance of claimants accepting an offered property while simultaneously requesting a s.202 review — a course the textbook Housing Allocation and Homelessness Law and Practice (6th ed, HHJ Luba) expressly recommends as the advisable approach in light of the serious consequences that may follow from refusal of accommodation later upheld as suitable.
Copyright & permissions