Evictions and disability discrimination

Could disability discrimination-linked eviction cases erode the case management powers of county courts? Jonathan Hulley reports on a Supreme Court case being heard this week.

Today (10 December) a Supreme Court hearing will take place concerning the eviction case between affordable homes provider Aster Communities and one of its tenants Jonathan Akerman-Livingstone, who suffers from complex post-traumatic stress disorder.

This case is attracting much attention from the local government and social housing sectors because if Mr Akerman-Livingstone’s appeal is successful, it could also set a precedent for similar cases having to proceed to a fully contested trial in the future, even though such cases are currently capable of being considered by the county court at a far earlier stage.

Akerman-Livingstone has already unsuccessfully contested an eviction order in the County Court and the High Court, whilst the Court of Appeal had also rejected his appeal. Therefore the present position is that a disabled tenant, who is arguing that an attempt to evict is discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010, can still have their case determined by the County Court summarily i.e. at an early stage in legal proceedings and without the proceedings to a fully contested trial.

It all started in 2010 when Mr Akerman-Livingstone applied to Mendip District Council for housing as he was homeless and was put in temporary accommodation provided by Aster Communities under a non-secure tenancy.

The council decided that as he was homeless, he should therefore be offered permanent accommodation. It made offers of suitable accommodation, but he rejected them all because he said that his disability made it difficult for him to make the decision. Because the offers were rejected the council considered it had fulfilled its duty to try and house Mr Akerman-Livingstone.

It subsequently instructed Aster to end his non-secure tenancy agreement and when he did not move out, possession proceedings commenced. At this point Mr Akerman-Livingstone sought to defend the proceedings by alleging that his human rights had been infringed and that he had been discriminated against.

Now four years later, if the Supreme Court finds in favour of Mr Akerman-Livingstone, it will call into question the ability of county court judges to take management control over certain cases, including giving back possession to the landlord without the need for fully contested trial.

County court judges could find themselves strait jacketed when it comes to their case management powers where disability discrimination is an issue for consideration in a particular case. In practice, Mr Akerman Livingstone is asking the Supreme Court to rule that in eviction cases where disability discrimination is raised as a defence, that case must, in all circumstances, proceed to a fully contested trial.

For social landlords the practical consequences of the Appeal succeeding will be that they are likely to have to endure many costly and lengthy possession eviction proceedings in the courts, and in some cases having to wait years before being able to get their properties back.

Jonathan Hulley is a partner and Head of Housing Management at national law firm, Clarke Willmott LLP. Jonathan’s team acts for Aster Communities in this appeal.