The case held that a landlord could still progress with possession proceedings even if they fail to consider the public sector equality duty (PSED) under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 – if, on the facts, it could be shown that the decision to grant possession would not have been substantially different.
Background
This case involved an anti-social tenant, who had numerous complaints made against him. The landlord made a claim for possession of the property after warning the tenant about the anti-social behaviour of the visitors to the property.
The landlord began possession proceedings without conducting a PSED assessment, despite the tenant having physical disabilities. The trial judge held that the tenant had breached the terms of his tenancy agreement and rejected his claim of indirect discrimination. The trial judge believed that possession of the property was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and that there was no causal link between the anti-social behaviour and the disability.
On first appeal at the High Court, the court held that even if the PSED had been considered, possession would have been granted regardless.
The case was appealed once more to the Court of Appeal who held it is not a general rule that if a landlord fails to conduct a PSED assessment, then a possession order should automatically be set aside. The court should look at the facts of the case and if it is decided that it’s highly likely the decision of the case would not have been substantially different if the PSED had been considered, then the order does not need to be set aside.
This decision does not mean that landlords can now ignore their duties under the PSED and should still carry out an assessment before issuing proceedings where they know or strongly suspect a disability exists. For example, a landlord might decide to offer or refer to support first. However, it is a significantly helpful case for social landlords undergoing possession proceedings where they have failed to do a PSED assessment if the facts support an argument that the decision would have been the same, even if they had.
For more details on this case, please contact Baljit Basra or Rumandeep Dhariwal.
A recent publication by the Transport Committee recommends that pavement parking be made illegal and for new offences to be introduced.
Our response to the Government’s consultation “A New Deal for Renting” has now been submitted following the consultation closing on 12 October.
In response to the Women and Equalities Select Committee Report back in July 2018 on sexual harassment in the workplace, the Government is looking at a number of initiatives.
What do you do if an employee persists in raising the same concern, again and again, taking up copious amounts of management time and patience
Creating an inclusive and diverse workplace culture is no longer seen as “management speak” but rather as a necessity for success.
The Court of Appeal held that no pro-rata mechanism was included in the Working Time Regulations 1998, and so part-year employees were entitled to 5.6 weeks’ paid holiday just like their colleagues wo
This quarter our spotlight piece focuses on Brexit following the updated briefing note issued by the National Housing Federation (NHF) to help the housing sector prepare for a no-deal Brexit.
In the latest Chambers and Partners rankings, Anthony Collins Solicitors has maintained its position as a Band 1 law firm.
An issue being brought into public view in the latter part of this decade, thanks to a healthy handful of royals and celebrities, is the existence of hidden disabilities.
Whilst we all wait in limbo for the UK’s future in Europe, Hazel covers some basics worth noting...
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.