High Court judge remits case on delay in providing accommodation for fresh hearing

That outcome has arisen in a case heard in the High Court by Mrs Justice Heather Williams which concerned whether Lambeth’s failings were ad hoc or systemic over reasonable steps to avoid group disadvantage for disabled people.

She said the claim originated as an application for judicial review that alleged Lambeth was in breach of the statutory duties under the Housing Act 1996.

Lambeth had acknowledged it owed the claimant the interim housing duty, but he was not provided with temporary accommodation for three months.

It had assessed him as requiring accommodation within the borough or 30 minutes public transport commute of St Thomas' Hospital, where he was receiving treatment. But the claimant was placed in temporary accommodation in North Finchley, which did not meet these criteria.

The council later accepted he was owed the main housing duty, but it was several months before he was accommodated in Lambeth.

Heather Williams J heard that the claimant is disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.

His application for judicial review included a claim that Lambeth failed to comply with a duty to make reasonable adjustments pursuant to sections 20 and 21.

She noted the remainder of the judicial review claim was withdrawn after the he was provided with a secure tenancy in Lambeth.

Heather Williams J said the claimant relied on a ‘provision criterion or practice’ that Lambeth placed a considerable proportion of its homelessness applicants in out-of-borough temporary accommodation.

It was said this put disabled people at a substantial disadvantage because they are more likely to have location-specific needs.

The claimant said reasonable adjustments could have included placing people with disability-related needs in the areas where those can be met or by taking very active steps them into suitable accommodation that is suitable.

The council could also investigate whether to use its social housing stock or commission additional accommodation.

Heather Williams J said the county court found the proposed adjustments had either been undertaken by Lambeth or were not reasonable steps.

HHJ Bloom in the county court distinguished between reasonable systemic steps taken by Lambeth and ad hoc failures that had occurred in the claimant’s case, finding the latter did not give rise to a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

The claimant amended his grounds of appeal to add that HHJ Bloom erred in respect of section 21(2) EqA 2010 and was wrong to hold that Lambeth had complied with the section 20 duty on the basis that the failures in his case had been an "individual ad hoc matter”.

He also alleged HHJ Bloom failed to apply the reverse burden of proof provision in section 136(2)-(3) EqA 2010, in concluding Lambeth’s failures were a "one-off" and consequently, it had not discriminated against him.

It was submitted for the claimant that HHJ Bloom failed to consider whether Lambeth’s admitted failings were the product of systemic failings and had decided that the system in Lambeth was working well when she had no evidence to that effect.

Lambeth argued the judge had carefully considered evidence on its systems and the practicalities and constraints it faced, before concluding that reasonable steps had been taken.

As her reasoning displayed no error of law, the judge's findings of fact were unassailable, it argued.

Heather Williams J found HHJ Bloom did err as her approach failed to reflect the burden of proof that lay on Lambeth and so quashed the earlier order dismissing the claim.

She said: “I have decided that the appropriate course is to remit the claim, given I do not…know precisely what was or was not said at trial about the failings in the claimant's case and the possible interlinkage between them and the way that Lambeth's system operated in practice for others in the same class of disabled persons.”

To avoid delay and expense she said she would remit the case to the judge “who had the benefit of hearing the trial and who in all other respects arrived at a clear and unassailable decision”.

She should then determine the reasonable steps issue on the basis of the evidence she heard previously.

Heather Williams J though dismissed the claimant’s amended ground on the sections 20 duty.

She said his arguments “rested on a false premise” as a failure to apply an adjustment to the individual would not of itself amount to a failure to comply with the section 20(3) requirement.

There was no breach of duty in a Schedule 2 section 20(3) case unless there has been a failure to comply with the duty to take such steps as are reasonable to address the substantial disadvantage to the relevant class.

“On the judge's findings in this case, which is the basis upon which Ground One proceeds, those steps had been taken,” Heather Williams J said.

Mark Smulian