AB & Anor, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council
[2024] EWHC 266 (Admin)
Anisa Begum (R on the application of) v London Borough Of Tower Hamlets
4 September 2024
[2024] EWHC 2279 (Admin)
High Court
A woman claimed her council gave her a bad flat and unfairly treated women in general because of how they handled housing requests. The judge said the flat was bad, but since the woman got a better one later, that part of the case didn't matter. The judge also said the council's system for handling housing requests wasn't unfair to women. Therefore, the council won.
Key Facts
- •Claimant, Anisa Begum, applied as homeless under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.
- •Defendant, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, provided unsuitable accommodation (Catford Studio).
- •Claimant alleged unsuitable accommodation and indirect discrimination against women due to the Defendant's use of a 'transfer list' or database.
- •Claimant was eventually allocated suitable accommodation.
- •Shelter intervened in the proceedings.
Legal Principles
Local housing authorities have duties and powers to provide accommodation to homeless applicants under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.
Housing Act 1996, Part 7
Accommodation provided must be suitable to the needs of the homeless person and each member of their household.
Housing Act 1996, s. 206(1); Nzolameso v Westminster City Council [2015] UKSC 22
The Equality Act 2010 prohibits indirect discrimination.
Equality Act 2010, s. 19
For indirect discrimination, a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) must put a group at a particular disadvantage compared to others; justification is required if proven.
Equality Act 2010, s. 19; Essop v Home Office [2017] UKSC 27; Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39
Public authorities have a Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under s. 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010, s. 149
The main housing duty under s.193(2) HA 1996 is immediate, non-deferrable and unqualified.
R (Imam) v Croydon London Borough Council [2023] UKSC 45
Outcomes
Claim for unsuitable accommodation dismissed as academic; the Claimant had been provided with suitable accommodation.
The court found the Catford Studio unsuitable from October 2022 but considered the claim academic given the subsequent provision of suitable housing.
Claim for indirect discrimination dismissed.
The court found that the Defendant's database was not a PCP. Even if it were, the statistical evidence did not demonstrate that women were at a particular disadvantage. The court also found that even if discriminatory, the creation of the database was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Claim for breach of PSED dismissed.
The court found the Defendant's actions in creating and using the database did not constitute a breach of the PSED.
Similar Cases
AK, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council
[2024] EWHC 769 (Admin)
BN, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Hounslow
[2023] EWHC 3083 (Admin)
Sabhya Bano, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Waltham Forest
[2024] EWHC 654 (Admin)
Katie-Leigh Webb-Harnden v London Borough of Waltham Forest
[2023] EWCA Civ 992