High Court Upholds Council's Housing Allocation Policy in Landmark Disability Discrimination Case

Introduction

The High Court’s decision in Carly Jayne Willott, R (on the application of) v Eastbourne Borough Council [2024] EWHC 113 (Admin) delves into numerous critical points of law, pertaining to housing allocation schemes, discrimination arising from disability, and the statutory obligations governing local housing authorities. This case elucidates the tension between individual rights under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA) and the broader public interest considerations that local authorities must balance when allocating scarce housing resources.

Key Facts

The Claimant, Carly Jayne Willott, applied for judicial review of Eastbourne Borough Council’s decision to uphold their original ruling not to allow her to join the housing register due to ‘serious anti-social behaviour’. Willott, diagnosed with Adult ADHD and an autistic spectrum condition, challenged the council’s decision on six grounds, arguing that the relevant rule operated as an unlawful blanket policy which indirectly discriminated against disabled persons.

The case also explored whether the exclusion was proportional to the council’s legitimate aim, whether the council’s policy included a safety valve for exceptional cases, and the requirements under the EqA for reasonable accommodations to be made for individuals with disabilities.

Legal Principles

Housing Allocation Schemes and Discretion:

The Court confirmed that local housing authorities (subject to the Housing Act 1996 (HA 1996)) have the prerogative to decide their eligibility criteria for housing allocation, which may include exclusion for anti-social behaviour. However, it clarified that any such policy must not be too rigid to preclude the authority from considering each application on its own merits, and should avoid unlawful direct or indirect discrimination as outlined in the EqA.

Indirect Discrimination under the EqA:

Addressing the claim of indirect discrimination (EqA section 19), the Court assessed whether the local authority’s rule disproportionately impacted those with ADHD and ASD compared to those without these disabilities. The Court found insufficient evidence of a causal link between these conditions and the behaviour leading to exclusion from the housing register.

Discrimination Arising from Disability:

The Court examined whether the Claimant’s exclusion from the housing register constituted unfavourable treatment arising from her disability, which would violate EqA section 15. It found that there was no evidence the Claimant’s behavior was a result of her disabilities; rather, it was significantly influenced by alcohol, thus not attracting the protection of the EqA.

Duty to Make Adjustments:

Under EqA sections 20 and 21, and having defined the appropriate category of disabled persons, the Court investigated whether the ‘substantially disadvantaged’ persons with disabilities faced barriers due to the council’s policy, necessitating reasonable adjustments. The Court ruled there was no evidence of substantial disadvantage to disabled persons generally, or any reasonable adjustments that could apply to the group at large.

Transparency and Certainty in Policies:

Exploring the principle of transparency in public policy-making from Lumba, the Court concluded that while the drafting of the relevant rule might not have been perfect, it was sufficiently clear to meet the requirements of law and did not create a confusion between policy and practice.

Outcomes

The Court ultimately dismissed the Claimant’s application for judicial review on all grounds. It supported the local authority’s right to define eligibility criteria for housing allocation, including the exclusion on grounds of anti-social behaviour, as justified under the statute and not discriminatory under the EqA.

Conclusion

In Willott v Eastbourne Borough Council, the High Court consolidated important precedents on local housing authorities’ obligations and discretion under the HA 1996 and reinforced the boundaries of the EqA in the context of housing allocations. The case emphasizes the need for housing allocation schemes to strike a balance between flexibility and definitive criteria, duly considering the vulnerability of disabled individuals while safeguarding the interests of the community at large. The principle of proportionality and non-discrimination remains central to lawful decision-making in housing allocations.