London And Quadrant Housing Trust v Patrick

A public-sector landlord considering possession proceedings affecting a disabled person is subject to the public sector equality duty. The duty requires due regard to the statutory equality objectives, with an open-minded and sufficiently rigorous assessment proportionate to the circumstances. It is not a veto on possession proceedings and does not prescribe fixed procedural steps at every stage.

The duty is continuing. A later assessment may remedy an earlier failure where it is genuine and adequately considers the relevant disability and competing interests. Even where breach is established, the court may uphold the decision if careful analysis shows that compliance would not have produced a materially different outcome. The interests of neighbours and the seriousness and duration of anti-social behaviour are relevant countervailing factors.

The Trust sought possession of accommodation let to Mr Patrick after he breached an injunction made under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The breach brought the case within mandatory ground 7A of Part I of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988.

Mr Patrick raised disability discrimination and public sector equality duty arguments shortly before the summary possession hearing, serving medical evidence two days beforehand. The circuit judge considered the claim under CPR 55.8 and made a suspended possession order. A later formal equality assessment supported enforcement. The appeal concerned whether the alleged failure to comply with section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 required case management directions or invalidated the possession decision.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Trust had complied with the public sector equality duty. The evidence of schizophrenia and disability was disclosed very late, after earlier requests for medical evidence had not been answered. The Trust could reasonably be expected to engage with the duty only when the medical evidence arrived.
2. The duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 is a duty to have due regard, not a duty to achieve a particular result. The decision-maker must balance the equality objectives against material countervailing factors. In a possession case those factors may include the impact of the tenant’s conduct on neighbours, including proven anti-social behaviour and its consequences for their health and security.
3. The duty must be exercised in substance, with rigour and an open mind. It is continuing, but it does not impose fixed procedural hoops regardless of when the disability becomes known or the stage reached in the proceedings. Late disclosure may justify a less formal assessment and may mean that the duty does not require postponement of possession proceedings.
4. The Trust’s later assessment was a genuine further consideration before enforcement, not a cosmetic rear-guard action. The continuing duty left open the possibility of deciding not to enforce the order after that assessment.
5. Alternatively, even if there had been an earlier breach, it was capable of remedy. Following Forward v Aldwyck Housing Group [2019] EWHC 24, and the approach in Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Norton [2011] EWCA Civ 834 and R (West Berkshire District Council and another) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] 1 W.L.R. 3923, the court could uphold the decision where subsequent compliance was adequate and a compliant assessment would not have made a material difference.
6. On the facts, a proper assessment made when the disability became known would have led to the same decision to seek summary possession. The appeal was dismissed.

The judgment describes an appeal from an order made by HHJ Saggerson. The judge had concluded that there were no substantial grounds genuinely disputing the possession claim under CPR 55.8 and made a possession order suspended for six weeks. The High Court dismissed Mr Patrick’s appeal.