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.
We summarise the outcome of the High Court case ruling against Kingston-upon-Thames RBC and which landlords may need to take action and when, regarding compensation for overcharging water bills.
It is important to remember that when it comes to selling services, you must deliver on your promises.
Under section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSWA) 1974, organisations are obligated to avoid public health and safety risks through the conduct of their business.
How does a media-savvy employer ensure a season of festive cheer but without mishap, damage to their reputation or harassment and bullying claims?
Providers need to be alive to the risk of contractors becoming insolvent and how to limit the resulting inevitable disruption.
Housing associations must continue to deliver core functions effectively and compliantly notwithstanding the uncertainty over the standards to which you will be held in the future.
Over the last few years the meaning of “asset management” has changed from being all about repairs to understanding that assets might not stay in an organisation forever.
The Grenfell Tower tragedy has understandably prompted a fundamental reconsideration of how building safety is approached for High-Rise Residential Buildings.
Results from the latest three-yearly valuation of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) are starting to trickle through.
The potential for Brexit with or without a deal causes uncertainty, and credit rating agencies do not like uncertainty.
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.