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

The statutory power to prescribe housing benefit functions permits a scheme under which rent officer assessments remain part of the calculation, while increases are capped by reference to the Consumer Price Index. Parliament did not clearly require housing benefit to track market rents alone.

The public sector equality duty requires a decision-maker to consider equality issues where there is sufficient reason to believe that the measure may raise them. The duty may extend beyond unequal impact to greater disadvantage suffered by a protected group. An equality impact assessment need not follow a prescribed form, but a formulaic or tick-box approach is dangerous. The assessment must demonstrate genuine consideration of the relevant consequences and equality implications.

The claimant, a charity concerned with poverty relief, sought judicial review of the Rent Officers (Housing Benefit Functions) (Amendment) Order 2012. The Order froze local housing allowance rates for the relevant year and thereafter limited annual increases by reference to the lower of market-based calculations and the Consumer Price Index.

The claimant argued that the Order was ultra vires the power in section 122(1) of the Housing Act 1996 and that the Secretary of State had failed to comply with the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The Secretary of State disputed both grounds and also relied on delay. The court considered the substantive grounds and dismissed the application.

1. Vires. The 2012 Order fell within section 122(1) of the Housing Act 1996. Although the court accepted that functions conferred on rent officers should involve, at least to some extent, their characteristic expertise, the Order still required an assessment using the previous rent-based method in every broad rental market area. The fact that the resulting figure might be displaced by CPI uprating did not make the function invalid.
2. The statutory scheme gave the Secretary of State a wide discretion over the terms and levels of housing benefit. Section 130A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 did not clearly require market rents to be the sole criterion. The proposed ministerial amendments and an alleged governmental promise could not alter the objective construction of section 122(1). The alleged promise was unsupported by sufficient evidence and, in any event, was not admissible under ordinary R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p Spath Holme Ltd principles.
3. Equality duty. The Secretary of State was required to consider both whether protected households were disproportionately likely to be affected and whether the consequences might be more disadvantageous for a protected group. The Equality Impact Assessment addressed the particular difficulties disabled people might face on moving and was therefore sufficient on that issue.
4. There was no sufficient reason to believe that changing schools after a forced move raised an equality issue requiring specific consideration for children of school age. The possible additional effect on larger families and ethnic minorities was secondary to the earlier housing benefit changes and did not require a further assessment. The existing assessment also adequately covered the freeze because its impact was not of a different character from CPI uprating.
5. The claim therefore failed on both substantive grounds. The court dismissed the application and did not determine the alternative arguments concerning delay or withholding relief.

First-instance judicial review. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.