London borough agrees to review residence criterion in housing allocation scheme after legal challenge by refugee
Hounslow Council has agreed to review a residence criterion in its housing allocation scheme that requires applicants to have lived in the borough for five years, after a legal challenge brought by a refugee who had fled severe gender-based violence in her home country.
The claimant, BN, was unable to go onto Hounslow’s housing waiting list because she had not lived in the borough for the requisite period.
She argued that the policy amounted to unlawful discrimination against those fleeing certain types of violence, and refugees.
Settling the claim, Hounslow accepted that:
(a) between 3 April 2023 and 8 November 2023, by application of the residence criterion it:
(i) unlawfully indirectly discriminated against the claimant on grounds of race (as a non-UK national, who is a refugee) and on grounds of sex (as a woman, who is a victim of gender-based non-domestic violence), contrary to sections 19 and 29 of the Equality Act (“EA”) 2010;
(ii) unlawfully discriminated against the claimant as a refugee and as a victim of gender-based non-domestic violence, contrary to Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) read with Article 8 ECHR; and
(b) in introducing and maintaining the residence criterion it had failed to comply with its public sector equality duty under section 149 EA 2010.
In addition to reviewing the residence criterion with six months, the council has agreed:
- pending any amendments arising out of the review, to disapply the criterion in relation to applicants who are refugees and/or who have fled non-domestic gender-based violence; and to
- publish details of the disapplication on its website within 14 days of the order, to ensure that potential applicants are aware of their entitlement to join its housing register.
Mr Justice Fordham handed down a short judgment last month recording, verbatim, the agreed terms of the Court Order. The judgment can be found here.
Hounslow were ordered to pay the claimant’s costs in full.
Jamie Burton KC and Daniel Clarke of Doughty Street Chambers represented the claimant, instructed by Beatrice Patrick of Hopkin Murray Beskine solicitors.
