Pieretti v London Borough of Enfield

The public sector equality duty in section 49A(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 applied to all functions exercised by local housing authorities under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, including individual inquiries and reviews. It complemented, rather than displaced, the homelessness scheme.

Decision-makers were not required to investigate disability in every case. But they had to take further inquiries where the evidence raised a real possibility of a disability relevant to the statutory decision. In an intentional-homelessness review, that included a possible effect on whether conduct was deliberate or undertaken in good faith. A reviewing officer breached the duty by failing to investigate such a possibility raised by the applicant’s account, medical evidence and asserted disability.

The appellant and his wife applied to the local authority for accommodation under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 after eviction from their assured shorthold tenancy. The authority accepted that they were homeless, eligible and in priority need, but decided that they had become homeless intentionally because of rent arrears.

Following a review decision dated 2 June 2009, the appellant appealed under section 204. The Central London County Court dismissed the appeal on 12 November 2009. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, contending that the authority had breached section 49A(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by failing to investigate whether depression or other disability affected the conduct relied upon as intentional homelessness.

The central issue was whether, and to what extent, the disability equality duty applied to local authorities’ homelessness functions.

1. Appeal allowed. Lord Justice Wilson, with whom Longmore and Mummery LJJ agreed, held that section 49A(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 applied to a local housing authority’s functions under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996. It applied both to policy-making and to decisions in individual cases. The statutory homelessness provisions dealing with disability did not exclude the separate equality duty; they were complemented by it.

2. The duty covered preliminary functions, including the duty to make inquiries under section 184 and the duty to review under section 202. The references in sections 205 and 206 to the discharge of housing functions by securing accommodation did not mean that inquiry and review were not functions for this purpose.

3. The court qualified the approach in Cramp v Hastings BC [2005] EWCA Civ 1005. After section 49A came into force, a reviewing officer could not consider disability only where it was obvious or expressly raised. The duty did not require active investigation in every case. The practical question was whether the evidence raised a real possibility of a disability relevant to the decision, such that further inquiry was a due step.

4. Here the irregular rent history, the appellant’s claim of disability, and the general practitioner’s report of longstanding depressive illness raised a real possibility that mental impairment was relevant to whether the conduct was deliberate under section 191(1), or in good faith under section 191(2). The reviewing officer therefore had to make further inquiries. Her failure to do so breached section 49A(1)(d).

5. The county court judge’s dismissal was set aside. The first appeal was allowed and the review decision of 2 June 2009 was quashed. No fresh review or declaration was directed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal in [2010] EWCA Civ 1104. It set aside the county court’s order, allowed the statutory appeal, and quashed the local authority’s review decision.

• Central London County Court: On 12 November 2009, His Honour Judge Mitchell dismissed the appellant’s appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 against the review decision dated 2 June 2009.