Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

The claimant sought judicial review of the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) (Amendment) Order 2012, contending that (A) it was ultra vires the power in section 122(1) of the Housing Act 1996 read with section 130A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 because AMHB must be set by reference to actual rents, and (B) the Secretary of State breached the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 by an inadequate equality impact assessment. The court held that the 2012 Order was within the statutory power: the order still requires an "old-method" rent officer determination to be undertaken and Parliament did not clearly restrict AMHB to be determined only by reference to market rents. The court further held that the Secretary of State had discharged the section 149 duty: the equality impact assessment and related material were not so deficient as to require quashing of the Order. The claim was dismissed.

The claimant charity challenged the 2012 Order, which froze local housing allowance rates from 2 April 2012 and thereafter limited uprating to the lower of (a) the 30th percentile rent figure using the rent officer method and (b) an amount uprated by the annual Consumer Price Index. The claimant sought quashing of the Order on two principal grounds: that it was ultra vires the order-making power under section 122(1) of the Housing Act 1996 in the context of section 130A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, and that the Secretary of State failed to comply with the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Nature of the claim/application: Judicial review seeking to quash the 2012 Order and associated decisions on the basis of lack of power and breach of the equality duty.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether section 122(1) of the Housing Act 1996 (as read with section 130A of the 1992 Act) authorised an order which effectively allowed uprating by reference to CPI rather than exclusively by reference to rent officer determinations of market rents.
• Whether the Secretary of State breached the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 by producing an inadequate equality impact assessment and failing to consider particular equality risks (notably effects on disabled people, school-age children and ethnic minority households).
• Whether the claim should be refused for delay or withheld relief for reasons of public administration.

Court's reasoning (concise): On vires, the court accepted that the rent officer function should involve the use of rent officers' expertise, but concluded the 2012 Order still requires the "old-method" rent officer determination to be carried out in every broad rental market area in order to compare it with the CPI-uprated figure, so the Order falls within the scope of the statutory power. The court rejected the argument that Parliament plainly intended AMHB to be determined only by reference to market rents and found that any limitation on the Secretary of State's discretion would have to be clearly expressed. Evidence of later legislative amendment (section 69 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012) and contemporaneous statements did not alter the objective construction of the power.

On the equality duty, the court examined the October 2011 equality impact assessment and related impact assessment. It held that the assessment addressed the relevant protected characteristics and that the Secretary of State had had due regard to risks to disabled people and to mitigation by discretionary payments. The court accepted there was no sufficient reason to treat potential harm to school-age children as an equality issue requiring specific additional assessment, and held that ethnic-minority/large-family effects were largely an effect of the earlier cap and had been considered in earlier material. The court therefore found no breach of section 149.

The court did not decide the separate arguments on delay and withholding relief because the substantive challenges failed. The application was dismissed.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that (1) the 2012 Order was within the power conferred by section 122(1) of the Housing Act 1996 read with section 130A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 because the Order still required a rent officer "old-method" determination to be made and Parliament had not clearly limited AMHB to be set only by reference to market rents; and (2) the Secretary of State complied with the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 because the equality impact assessment and related material showed that relevant equality issues had been considered and that no legal defect requiring quashing was established.