Oday Yabari, R (on the application of) v The Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster
[2023] EWHC 185 (Admin)
AB & Anor, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council
9 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 266 (Admin)
High Court
A disabled couple challenged their council's housing and pet policies. The court said the council initially failed to provide suitable housing but the new housing, while temporary, wasn't unreasonable. The council's pet policy wasn't found to be discriminatory. The couple should challenge the housing suitability through the normal appeal process, not court action.
Key Facts
- •AB and CD, a couple with serious physical and mental disabilities and a support dog, were deemed homeless by Westminster City Council.
- •The Council initially provided unsuitable separate accommodation.
- •Claimants challenged the adequacy of accommodation and the Council's pet policy's indirect discrimination against disabled individuals.
- •The Claimants were eventually housed together with their dog in a Travelodge outside London.
- •The case involved challenges under the Housing Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010.
Legal Principles
A local authority's duty to secure accommodation under the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996) s 193(2) is immediate, non-deferrable, and unqualified; the accommodation must be 'suitable'.
R (Elkundi) v Birmingham City Council [2022] EWCA Civ 601
HA 1996 provides a right to request a review of a local authority's decision on accommodation suitability, with a right of appeal to the County Court.
Housing Act 1996, ss 202, 203, 204
Public authorities must not discriminate in exercising public functions (Equality Act 2010 (EA 2010) s 29(6)), including indirect discrimination (s 19), and must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality (s 149).
Equality Act 2010, ss 19, 29(6), 149
Challenges to the suitability of accommodation should generally follow statutory review and appeal processes under HA 1996, not judicial review.
Case law discussion, particularly regarding the use of alternative remedies
In indirect discrimination claims under EA 2010 s 19, the claimant must establish a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) disadvantages those with a protected characteristic, and the defendant must show proportionality.
Equality Act 2010, s 19
The public sector equality duty (PSED) requires due regard to disabilities when determining accommodation suitability, but doesn't mandate 'more than suitable' accommodation.
Hackney LBC v Haque [2017] EWCA Civ 4
Outcomes
Claim allowed in relation to breach of HA 1996 duty to provide suitable accommodation before October 17, 2023.
The council conceded the breach.
Claim dismissed regarding breach of HA 1996 duty after October 17, 2023.
The court found the council's conclusion that the new accommodation was suitable was not irrational, and that the claimants should use statutory review and appeal processes to challenge suitability.
Claim dismissed concerning the alleged unlawful pet policy under EA 2010.
The claimants failed to establish that the policy's requirement for medical evidence or the council's practice of not maintaining pet-friendly housing stock indirectly discriminated against disabled persons.
Claim dismissed regarding breach of the public sector equality duty (PSED).
The court found the council adequately considered the claimants' disabilities in its decision-making process.
Similar Cases
Anisa Begum (R on the application of) v London Borough Of Tower Hamlets
[2024] EWHC 2279 (Admin)
Seyyed Mohammad Mahdi Jaberi, R (on the application of) v City of Westminster
[2023] EWHC 1045 (Admin)
Rebecca Pickford, R (on the application of) v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 756 (Admin)
FG, R (on the application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington Chelsea
[2024] EWHC 780 (Admin)