May 15, 2026

HXY -v- London Borough of Croydon (anonymity order)

Administrative Court High Court King's Bench Division Anonymity Order

Case number: AC-2026-LON-001759

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of an application for judicial review

15 May 2026

Before:

Richard Clayton KC,
sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge

Between:

The King
on the application of
HXY

-v-

London Borough of Croydon

Order

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the Claimant and the Defendant

ORDER BY RICHARD CLAYTON KC SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE

Anonymity:

(a) Pursuant to CPR 39.2(4) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and/or s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998:

(i) the Claimant’s name is to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public; and

(ii) the Claimant is to be referred to orally and in writing as HXY.

(b) Pursuant to s. 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Claimant or of any matter likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.

(i) the parties must within 7 days file a redacted copy of any statement of case filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant;

(ii) if any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Claimant, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time;

(iii) unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non-party many obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.

(d) Any person wishing to vary or discharge this Order must make an application, served on each party.

Expedition:

(a) The Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 1 May 2026 but without a Summary Grounds of Defence. The Defendant states in section 3 that the parties are in discussion to avoid the necessity for these proceedings.

(b) The Summary Grounds must be filed and served be filed and served by [4pm on date by 22 May 2026.

(d) The papers are to be referred to a Judge or deputy Judge as soon as possible thereafter.

REASONS

(1) Anonymity: [The claim relies on personal medical information in which the Claimant’ family has a reasonable expectation of privacy. There are accordingly compelling reasons for the limited derogations from the principle of open justice in paragraph 1.

(2) Expedition:

(3) The Claimant challenges the Defendant’s ongoing failure to provide suitable accommodation in breach of housing duty under section 193(2) Housing Act 1996. The Defenant failed to exercise its power under s.213 Housing Act 1996 to seek assistance from London Borough of Lewisham or misdirected itself or failed to consider relevant considerations and reached a decision which breaches the principle of rationality. The decision letter is dated 12 February 2026 but was not received until 2 April 2026.

(4) The Claimant is a single mother with three children. She has two daughters now aged 17 and 12. Her son aged 14 is severely disabled following a car accident in 2014 and has severe mobility problems so that he uses a wheelchair (although not at all times). He is also doubly incontinent.

(5) On 15 October 2019 the Claimant and her children were provided with temporary accommodation in the London Borough of Lewisham. On 1 October 2021 the Defendant accepted the main housing duty under s.193 Housing Act 1996. On 23 January 2023 the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman upheld her complaint about placing the Claimant in unsuitable temporary accommodation where she remained.

(6) In March 2023 following an incident at school the Claimant’s son was moved to another school in Lewisham where he is now settled.

(7) On 5 August 2024 the Defendant offered 3-bedroom temporary accommodation in the Croydon area pursuant to the main housing duty under s. 193 HA 1996; refusing it would lead to the main housing duty ending.

(8) The Claimant accepted the accommodation but requested a review asserting it was unsuitable due to its location i.e. the distance from her children’s schools. The Claimant was supported by a number of letters from her children’s schools. The Defendant failed to acknowledge the review, despite chasing.

(9) On 10 October 2025 and 9 December 2025 the Claimant’s solicitors made representations regarding the unsuitability of the property. These were supported by an occupational therapist report.

(10) On 19 December 2025 the Defendant confirmed the Claimant would be moved and on 22 December 2025 the Defedant confirmed the current accommodation had been determined to be not suitable within the meaning of Part VII of the Housing Act 1996’.

(11) On 28 January 2026, the Claimant’s solicitors asked the Defendant to make a request under s. 213 HA 1996 to the London Borough of Lewisham to assist D in the discharge of their functions under this Part, and to allow the Claimant to join Lewisham’s Housing Register.

(12) On 29 January 2026 the Claimant sent a letter before action. On February 2026 the Defendant completed a reviewed assessment of housing need which concluded that the Claimant ‘will need a 3-bedroom property suitable in Lewisham for a wheelchair user, ground floor + wet room.’ On 12 February 2026 the Defendant responded to the Pre-action protocol letter agreeing to procure alternative, suitable, adapted property.

(13) On 27 March 2026 Lewisham took a review decision that the Claiimant was not eligible to join its housing register. The Defendant was told of this, and also that Lewisham had agreed to withdraw that decision.

(14) On 2 April 2026 the Defendant stated there is no obligation to make a request under s.213 Housing Act 1996. On 10 April 2026 the Claimant’s solicitors requested the Defendant to refer the Claimant’s case to Lewisham under s. 198 HA 1996, to pass on the s.193 duty but the Defendant has yet to respond.

Signed: Richard Clayton KC

Date: 15 May 2026