An appeal found there had been no breach of the public sector equality duty (PSED) or discrimination against a disabled tenant
In Reading Borough Council v Holland [2023] EWHC 1902 (Ch), a tenant attempted to appeal a possession order obtained by her council landlord. She argued that there had been a failure to properly consider both the impact of eviction on her with her particular disability and the availability of alternative accommodation. She argued that these alleged failures meant that the PSED imposed on public authorities by section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 had been breached and there was discrimination contrary to section 15 of the Act. Section 15 provides that a person (A) discriminates against a disabled person if A treats a disabled person unfavourably because of something which is a consequence of their disability and cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Since 2019 the council had let Flat 24 Liebenrood Road, Reading, RG30, to the appellant tenant. The flat was located within a small block of sheltered housing. It had a communication system installed which provided 24-hour call monitoring and was also inked to the fire alarm and lift in the block. The tenant suffered from an emotionally unstable personality disorder which was accepted to be a disability within the meaning of section 6 of the Act. She could regulate her behaviour but from the outset of her occupation of the flat she committed numerous acts of antisocial behaviour which impacted greatly on her neighbours, including interfering with the communication system and abusing those monitoring the calls. Following a multi-agency meeting, the council commenced possession proceedings. At trial it was able to satisfy the court that it had complied with its PSED and that eviction was proportionate, and a possession order was made. This was upheld on appeal.
The impact of eviction on the tenant with her particular disability had to be considered with sharp focus. However, in order to demonstrate compliance with the PSED it was not necessary for there to have been a single formal exercise. The county court judge had been entitled to look at whether there had been compliance on a wider basis, and having done this concluded that there had been. Given that the county court judge correctly directed herself as to the law, heard and read all the evidence and then made her finding, it would not be right for the higher court to interfere with this aspect.
In relation to proportionality, the burden had been on the landlord to show that no less drastic action than a possession order would be appropriate. It is wrong to treat proportionality as a binary choice between eviction or doing nothing. The county court had been right to find that eviction was proportionate within the meaning of section 15(1)b of the Act such that it did not unlawfully discriminate against the tenant and it had also properly considered the availability of suitable alternative accommodation.
One of the matters that the appeal court noted was the long-standing relationship between the council and the tenant, and the many efforts made by the council to assist her. The appeal judge also observed that the fact that antisocial behaviour had continued after the time of the order (as could be seen from admissions made in a committal application) may be said to reinforce the view that there really was no option but the eviction of the tenant from the flat.
Elizabeth Haggerty is a barrister
