Housing Barrister Summary of R (On the Application Of TX) v Adur District Council [2022]

Trinity Social Housing Law barrister, Henry Percy-Raine has prepared the following summary of the recent case of R (On the Application Of TX) v Adur District Council [2022] EWHC 3340 (Admin).

This judgment arises from a Judicial Review application of the Defendant’s housing allocations policy (“the policy”) in terms of its operation to preclude applicants in the Claimant’s position from being placed in the highest bands.

Facts

The policy adopted by the Defendant places successful applicants into one of four bands: A, B, C or D (those in Band A having the highest priority). The Claimant originated from the Defendant’s area. In November 2020, she fled a property in a different area following domestic abuse from her partner and went to live with her mother in the Defendant’s area. She was subsequently accepted on the Defendant’s housing register and placed in Band C.

Within the decision letter, following a review of that banding classification, the Defendant noted that under the applicable criteria a person in the Claimant’s position who had not lived or worked in the area continuously for the last two years but had a local connection to the area and an overriding need to move to the area will only be assessed as a band C or D (part 3.3.3(d) of the policy).

The Claimant brought the Judicial Review application with respect to the decision to limit her to Band C. The Claimant asserted that limiting her to Band C amounted to indirect discrimination, contrary to section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, or alternatively it violated Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), when read with Article 3 and/or Article 8.

Decision

There was no dispute between the parties that the policy was a PCP nor any dispute that the Claimant had the protected characteristic of sex for the purpose of s.19 Equality Act 2010.

Overall, it was held that although framed in neutral terms, the policy indirectly discriminated against women. Women were at a disadvantage compared to men as women were overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of domestic abuse and therefore have to move to another area as a result [58].

On application to the Claimant, although she was entitled to a reasonable preference because she was owed the main housing duty, she was under the policy limited to bands C or D and therefore less likely to obtain social housing.

In the premises, it was held that the effect of part 3.3.3(d) of the policy and its application to the Claimant did amount to a breach of s.19(2) Eq A 2010. As to justification, there was no evidence to show that the Defendant had considered the effect of the reduction in banding on women fleeing domestic abuse and conducted a proportionality exercise – accordingly it was held that the PCP discriminates unlawfully had not yet been justified [69]. In view of the decision on this ground, the alternative argument advanced on Article 14 ECHR did not fall for consideration.