Carly Jayne Willott, R (on the application of) v Eastbourne Borough Council
[2024] EWHC 113 (Admin)
RR, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Enfield
3 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2501 (Admin)
High Court
A disabled man challenged how Enfield gives out social housing. He said the system unfairly treated homeless disabled people. The judge said the system wasn't wrongly used, but Enfield should track how it affects disabled people better.
Key Facts
- •RR, a refugee from Iran and full-time carer for his disabled wife, challenged the London Borough of Enfield's social housing allocation scheme.
- •The scheme uses a points system, awarding 200 points to homeless applicants in temporary accommodation, regardless of health needs.
- •RR argued this disadvantaged disabled homeless applicants compared to non-homeless disabled applicants who could score up to 1000 points.
- •RR challenged the scheme on public law and anti-discrimination grounds.
- •Enfield offered alternative accommodation to RR after the hearing.
Legal Principles
Local housing authorities must have allocation schemes giving reasonable preference to certain groups, including the homeless and those needing to move on medical or welfare grounds.
Housing Act 1996, Part 6, Section 166A
Courts should generally avoid interfering with housing allocation priorities unless a policy is unlawful or irrational.
R(Ahmed) v London Borough of Newham [2009] UKHL 14
Article 14 ECHR prohibits discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights; to rely on it, a claim must fall under another Article, such as Article 8 (right to private and family life).
Article 14 ECHR
Housing allocation policies generally do not engage Article 8 ECHR.
R(Z & anr) v Hackney LBC & Anr [2019] EWCA Civ 1099
The Equality Act 2010 imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons. If a prima facie case of disadvantage is shown, the burden shifts to the respondent to show no contravention.
Equality Act 2010, Sections 19, 20, 136(2)
Public authorities must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations (Public Sector Equality Duty).
Equality Act 2010, Section 149
Outcomes
The challenge failed on grounds 1-2, 4-6.
The allocation scheme was not misapplied, Article 8 wasn't engaged, and RR failed to establish prima facie discrimination under the Equality Act 2010.
The challenge partially succeeded on Ground 7.
Enfield failed to fulfill its Public Sector Equality Duty by not monitoring and recording data on the allocation of housing to disabled households.
No remedy was granted.
The court found that even if Enfield had complied with its data-gathering obligations, the outcome would not have been different because of the part 7 housing provided and lack of application for a health assessment by RR.
Similar Cases
Oday Yabari, R (on the application of) v The Lord Mayor and Citizens of the City of Westminster
[2023] EWHC 185 (Admin)
Katie-Leigh Webb-Harnden v London Borough of Waltham Forest
[2023] EWCA Civ 992
EM, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Havering
[2024] EWHC 3016 (Admin)
AB & Anor, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council
[2024] EWHC 266 (Admin)