Trapped No More: High Court Orders Tower Hamlets to Rehouse Disabled Woman

Samuel O’Flaherty

The High Court has ordered Tower Hamlets to provide suitable accommodation to a homeless disabled woman whom it had left housebound in temporary accommodation for five years.

The woman, ‘AIN’ (anonymised by the Court), is a single mother of two. She applied to Tower Hamlets Council for homelessness assistance in 2017. The Council accepted that it owed her the ‘main housing duty’ and provided her family with temporary accommodation in a first floor flat with no lift.

AIN suffers from severe mobility difficulties due to injuries she sustained whilst imprisoned and tortured by the authorities in Ethiopia. She could not climb stairs so her son had to carry her up and down the 24 steps, but this caused him to develop back pain, so AIN was left trapped unable to leave the flat. A psychiatric report showed that this severely triggered her Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression from when she had been imprisoned. Her physical health also deteriorated as she could not access physiotherapy appointments.

In April 2022 there was a fire at the building. AIN had to wait for all the other residents to leave before her son could try to carry her slowly down to escape. AIN explains:

“I was panicking that we would burn in the flat. Our family was the last to leave the building. It took us a very long time to leave because there is no equipment to help disabled people down the stairs in case of fire.”

AIN’s mental health spiralled. She describes:

“I was trapped. I was terrified that a fire could happen again any time and I would not be able to get out in time. I felt like I was in prison again, I could not leave even for important medical appointments. I felt suffocated, isolated, helpless and hopeless. Suicide is coming in my mind many times but I cannot go through with this because of my children.

I want to feel free. I want to be able to leave my home when I want to, to get fresh air and daylight, to enjoy the world.”

Challenging Tower Hamlets Council

AIN told Tower Hamlets Council about these problems and asked them to provide her with alternative temporary accommodation that was suitable for her disability needs. In February 2023 Tower Hamlets finally accepted that the flat was unsuitable and that they had to offer her alternative suitable accommodation.

However, over a year later Tower Hamlets had not offered her anything. So AIN was helped by her church to find a solicitor who wrote to Tower Hamlets warning them that they were in breach of the law and that they had to provide suitable accommodation, otherwise AIN would have to bring a claim for judicial review against Tower Hamlets.

The Council responded by making a series of offers of accommodation, demanding that AIN must accept offers within 24 hours or be made homeless, only to then withdraw each offer after it became clear that they were unsuitable. This caused huge distress to AIN and the tactic delayed her ability to seek justice through the courts.

Sam O’Flaherty of Osbornes Law assisted AIN to bring a claim for judicial review in the High Court in December 2024. Sam explains:

“Usually a claim for judicial review can take many months or over a year before you reach the final hearing, but AIN could not wait that long. She was suffering so much. We therefore applied to the High Court for an urgent temporary order for the Council to offer AIN suitable accommodation. This is called ‘interim relief’.

It is very rare for the High Court to grant this, because you are effectively asking to short-circuit the process and be given what you would get at the very end of the case if you won. Even though the Council is in breach of the law, this does not automatically mean that the Court will make an order; it is at the Court’s discretion.”

Tower Hamlets made further offers of accommodation, assuring the Court that they were suitable, but later withdrawing each one after Osbornes showed that they were not suitable.

The High Court gave Tower Hamlets opportunities to make a suitable offer. Tower Hamlets was ordered to file a statement explaining the progress made in obtaining suitable accommodation, but it did not do so.

As no suitable offer had been made, Osbornes sought an expedited hearing for the interim relief application and for permission to proceed with the claim. The hearing took place on 29 April 2025.

The Hearing

AIN was represented by her solicitor, Sam O’Flaherty of Osbornes, and her barrister, Zia Nabi of Doughty Street Chambers.

At the hearing, the High Court granted AIN permission to proceed with her claim. The Judge accepted that it was clearly arguable that the Council had not secured accommodation for AIN as it was required to do under the main housing duty, that the situation had been ongoing for 26 months since it had accepted the need to provide alternative suitable accommodation and that 6 unsuitable offers had been made and withdrawn.

The High Court then turned to decide whether to grant ‘interim relief’ at this stage of the case.

AIN’s representatives explained that this was an urgent case because of how AIN’s physical and mental health were deteriorating, as well as the risk to her life in the event of a fire. There could be no argument that the Council was in breach of their legal duty. The Court of Appeal in the case of R (Elkundi and others) v Birmingham CC (2022) held that the main housing duty is “an immediate, non-deferrable, unqualified duty to secure that suitable accommodation is available for occupation”. The Supreme Court case of R (Imam) v Croydon LBC (2023) said that the onus was on the Council to demonstrate why a mandatory order should not be made where it was in breach of its legal duty, which the Council had failed to do in this case.

Tower Hamlets argued that it had taken all reasonable steps to try to comply with their duty but that it was extremely difficult for it to find suitable accommodation for AIN, due to its limited resources and the high demand. The Council asked the Court to postpone the proceedings to give it another chance to find somewhere. The Council would not agree to use its own properties on the housing register to offer as temporary accommodation to AIN, because it ‘deemed’ that other families on the housing register had a greater need than hers. It did not provide any evidence of this.

The High Court applied the criteria from the case of Imam. The judge concluded that issuing an order would not compel the Council to do the impossible. There had been a persistent pattern of unsuitable offers having been made, which the Council had not rectified. The Council was not checking the suitability of properties with an Occupational Therapist, which the Judge said was in effect the same as ‘sitting on its hands’. The Judge did not want to encourage the Council disregarding its duty by not making an order. The Judge found:

“It is difficult for me to imagine a claimant who is suffering greater needs today, she is in effect house bound, suffering trauma of fire where she was in risk of her life. This case is one of the upmost urgency. This was recognised by [the Court] almost 4 months ago and yet we are still waiting”

The Judge found that the Council had not explained how it would be unfair to others or give AIN undue priority by requiring it to comply with its duty, this did not outweigh the urgency. The Judge concluded that a mandatory order was the only way to focus the mind and oblige Tower Hamlets Council to take its duty seriously to find suitable accommodation for AIN. The Judge acknowledged that the decision in the case of Imam had been made at a final substantive hearing, whereas this was for interim relief only, but concluded that the same principles applied. The Council’s proposal to drag out the proceedings further was inappropriate given the further impact this would have on AIN. She had been held in an intolerable situation for far too long. The Judge granted AIN’s application for interim relief.

The High Court ordered Tower Hamlets Council to provide AIN with suitable accommodation within 3 weeks.

A New Home

As a result, the Council finally offered AIN alternative suitable accommodation. AIN was provided with a Council tenancy at a newly built two bedroom flat, fully adapted to meet her disability needs, with allocated parking for her disability car, close to the support of her church community and her sons’ educational placements. AIN says:

“I would like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to Sam O’Flaherty at Osbornes and my barrister for the incredible support and encouragement they have given me.

Thank you for being my voice, for standing up for me, and for understanding the difficulties I was facing, as well as the stress my boys went through as they witnessed my suffering. Thank you for listening to me with such patience and compassion.

It means so much to have somewhere we can live and be happy, where I am finally free and safe.”

How can we help?

This case highlights the critical role that expert legal representation can play in holding public authorities accountable. Osbornes Law, through the dedicated work of solicitor Sam O’Flaherty, demonstrated a deep commitment to justice and human dignity. His swift and strategic action ensured that AIN’s voice was heard and her rights upheld. For individuals facing complex housing and public law challenges, Osbornes Law stands out as a firm that combines compassion with formidable legal expertise. If you need help, contact us by:

• Filling in our online enquiry form; or
• Calling us on 020 7485 8811

This story has also been covered by The Standard.