The retired judge appointed to lead the Grenfell fire inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, allowed a London council to rehouse a tenant 50 miles away.

Titina Nzolameso, a mother of five with serious health problems, was offered accommodation in Bletchley, near Milton Keynes, by Westminster council after the government’s benefit cap made the rent on her London flat unaffordable.

When Nzolameso, a single mother, refused the offer, the council, in its role of local housing authority, decided its legal duty to secure her accommodation had come to an end.

Martin Moore-Bick. Photograph: Gary Lee/UPPA/Photoshot

In November 2014, Moore-Bick, who will lead the inquiry into the Grenfell Tower disaster, said the authority could rehouse Nzolameso in Buckinghamshire, adding it was not necessary for Westminster to explain in detail what other accommodation was available.

He added the council could take “a broad range of factors” into account when deciding what housing was available.

Following the ruling, Jayesh Kunwardia, of Hodge Jones & Allen Solicitors, which represented Nzolameso, said: “This judgment could have dire consequences for vulnerable families across the country.

“It gives the green light for councils to engage in social cleansing of the poor on a mass scale. Council tenants are being threatened with homelessness unless they agree to uproot themselves from communities they’ve lived in for years.”

During the case, Nzolameso said moving out of London to Buckinghamshire would deprive her of the network of friends that supported her when she was unwell with depression, diabetes and high blood pressure.

Moore-Bick’s decision was overturned by the supreme court in April 2015. Lady Hale said that, while out-of-borough placements were not prohibited, the authority had not properly explained its decision or provided evidence to show that the property in Bletchley “was sufficient to discharge their legal obligations” under laws governing the housing of homeless people.

In her ruling, she said: “There is little to suggest that serious consideration was given to the authority’s obligations before the decision was taken to offer the property in Bletchley.

“At that stage, the temporary lettings team knew little more than what was on the homelessness application form. This did not ask any questions aimed at assessing how practicable it would be for the family to move out of the area.

“Nor were any inquiries made to see whether school places would be available in Bletchley and what the appellant’s particular medical conditions required. Those inquiries were only made after the decision had been taken.”