Knowles & Anor, R (on the application of) v The Secretary Of State for Work And Pensions

Article 14 may require the state to treat persons in significantly different situations differently, including by allocating additional public resources. Indirect discrimination does not require discriminatory intent. In the field of welfare benefits and economic or social policy, however, the state generally enjoys a wide margin of appreciation. A policy will be unlawful only if it lacks a reasonable basis or is manifestly without reasonable foundation. A housing benefit scheme may distinguish between private and public landlords where the distinction reflects their materially different legal and commercial positions. Costs of services and facilities unrelated to accommodation fall outside the ordinary housing benefit scheme. On the evidence and assumptions adopted, applying rent restrictions to Gypsies and Travellers on private sites was objectively justified.

The claimants, Romani Gypsies living on a private caravan site, challenged housing benefit decisions which limited eligible rent by reference to rent officer assessments. Their contractual rent exceeded the housing benefit awarded. They argued that the scheme failed to reflect additional costs associated with Gypsy and Traveller sites and discriminated against them under article 14 of the Convention read with article 1 of the First Protocol and article 8.

The claim was ultimately confined to the compatibility of the statutory scheme and its application to Gypsies and Travellers on private sites, compared with occupants of public, county council or housing association sites and with non-Gypsy occupants of private sites.

1. The claim was dismissed. The court accepted that article 14 covers indirect discrimination and can apply where persons in significantly different situations receive the same treatment. A positive obligation to allocate additional resources may arise in such a case. The claim was properly analysed on that basis, subject to justification.
2. The housing benefit scheme was directed to rent and analogous accommodation costs. Most of the additional costs identified for Gypsy and Traveller sites, including intensive management, dispute resolution, refuse disposal, security and other services, were costs of services or facilities rather than accommodation. They were therefore outside eligible rent. Any remaining potentially eligible costs were small, uncertain and unquantified.
3. Even assuming that the potentially eligible additional accommodation costs were significant, the Secretary of State bore the burden of justification. The scheme concerned economic and social policy and attracted a relatively wide margin of appreciation. The applicable question was whether the policy lacked a reasonable basis or was manifestly without reasonable foundation. The approach was the same whether article 14 was read with article 1 of the First Protocol or article 8.
4. The distinction between local authority, county council or housing association landlords and private landlords had a rational basis. Public landlords were subject to public obligations of restraint, whereas private landlords were commercial landlords. Different mechanisms of rent control could therefore legitimately apply.
5. The Minister had considered competing options, cost, administrative simplicity, fairness to other mobile-home occupants and the effect of including non-accommodation costs. Maintaining rent officer assessment for private sites was a permissible policy choice, particularly in a period of financial stringency. Discretionary housing payments and other available options were relevant, although not a complete answer.
6. The treatment was objectively justified. The policy was not irrational or manifestly without reasonable foundation, and the claimants’ article 14 claim failed.

The judgment was a first-instance decision of the Administrative Court. Permission to proceed had previously been granted by the Court of Appeal, but no lower-court judgment was under appeal in this decision.