Reading Borough Council v Tina Holland

A public-sector landlord’s public sector equality duty is a duty of substance, rigour and open-minded consideration, but it need not be discharged through one formal assessment. The court must consider the landlord’s actions overall. In possession cases involving disability, the landlord must consider the likely effects of eviction, possible alternative accommodation and other less drastic measures. The proportionality assessment under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 is not a binary choice between eviction and doing nothing. The landlord must show that no less drastic action would be appropriate. However, an appellate court should not substitute its assessment of the evidence or the relative weight of competing factors for that of the trial judge. On the facts, the landlord had complied with the public sector equality duty and eviction without suitable alternative accommodation was proportionate.

The Respondent landlord obtained an order for possession of sheltered accommodation occupied by the Appellant, who had emotionally unstable personality disorder and therefore a disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The Appellant admitted breaches of her introductory tenancy and accepted that possession pursued a legitimate aim. She relied on the public sector equality duty under section 149 and disability discrimination under section 15, contending that eviction without suitable alternative accommodation would be disproportionate.

After a two-day trial, Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke found that the Respondent had complied with the public sector equality duty and had proved that eviction was proportionate. The appeal concerned whether the judge had failed to focus sufficiently on the effect of homelessness on the Appellant and whether the Respondent and the judge had failed to consider alternative accommodation, particularly in Reading.

1. Appeal dismissed. The possession order was upheld.
2. The public sector equality duty did not require the Respondent to carry out one formal exercise addressing the effect of eviction on the Appellant’s particular disability. Compliance could be assessed by considering the Respondent’s conduct overall. The Respondent’s extensive knowledge of the Appellant, its repeated attempts to provide support and suitable accommodation, and its documented consideration of the consequences of eviction enabled the judge to find that the required sharp focus had been applied.
3. The absence of further expert evidence from Dr Iles did not undermine the decision. A public-sector landlord is not required in every case to obtain expert evidence on the consequences of eviction. Whether further evidence was needed was a matter for the trial judge. For the proportionality issue, the judge was entitled to consider all the evidence before her.
4. The proportionality assessment was not a binary choice between eviction and doing nothing. All realistic options had to be considered, including alternative accommodation and intermediate measures. That principle applied both to section 15(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 and, in the circumstances, to the public sector equality duty.
5. The trial judge had considered the possibility of accommodation in Reading, the Appellant’s expressed wish to move to Devon, the late settlement offer, the previous accommodation history and the Respondent’s unsuccessful efforts to find suitable accommodation. She was entitled to conclude that no realistic less drastic option remained and that the Respondent could not be required to maintain the tenancy indefinitely while awaiting accommodation which might not exist.
6. The judge’s balancing exercise properly weighed the serious effects of eviction on the Appellant against the substantial risks to neighbours, staff, contractors, the Tunstall emergency system and property. There was no basis for appellate interference with those evaluative conclusions.

• High Court, Chancery Appeals: Appeal dismissed; the possession order was upheld.
• County Court at Reading, sitting at Oxford: Her Honour Judge Melissa Clarke made a possession order on 15 December 2022 after finding compliance with the public sector equality duty and proportionate eviction.