Anisa Begum (R on the application of) v London Borough Of Tower Hamlets

Accommodation secured under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 must be suitable for the particular homeless person and household. Suitability is fact-sensitive and may depend on space, layout, location and household needs.

The organisation of information about applicants on an internal database is not, without more, a provision, criterion or practice for the purposes of indirect discrimination. Even if it is a PCP, statistical evidence must identify meaningful comparators, establish particular disadvantage and show a causal link between the PCP and that disadvantage. A public authority need not conduct a separate Equality Act assessment for every administrative act, provided it has substantively discharged the Public Sector Equality Duty.

The claimant applied as homeless and was provided with a studio flat. After the birth of her first child, she complained that the accommodation was unsuitable. The defendant later accepted that the accommodation had been unsuitable from 17 June 2023, and the claimant moved to suitable accommodation on 25 August 2023.

The claim challenged the defendant’s performance of its homelessness duties under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996. It also alleged that maintaining a transfer database was indirect sex discrimination under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, and breached the Public Sector Equality Duty under section 149. The central issues were whether the database was a PCP, whether it caused particular disadvantage to women, whether any PCP was justified, and whether the duty had been discharged.

1. Suitability. Accommodation provided under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 must be suitable for the needs of the particular homeless person and each household member. The Catford studio was unsuitable for the claimant and her child by the end of October 2022. The internal memorandum and database entry evidenced a transfer request, not an acknowledgement that the accommodation was unsuitable. The issue was nevertheless academic because suitable accommodation had been accepted on 25 August 2023.
2. Indirect discrimination. Creating and maintaining the database was not a PCP. It was an administrative tool which organised some information and assisted housing officers to match demand with available supply. It was not a complete record of the information available to officers.
3. Alternatively, the statistical evidence did not establish meaningful comparators or show that women were disadvantaged by the database. It did not show that a hypothetical male homeless applicant was statistically more likely to receive suitable permanent accommodation as a result of being on the database. Nor was there a causal link between the database and the alleged disadvantages.
4. Justification. Alternatively, if the database were a discriminatory PCP, its creation was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The court distinguished the waiting-list practice found unlawful in R (Elkundi) v Birmingham City Council: the database did not postpone compliance with the main housing duty, but was intended to assist its performance.
5. Public Sector Equality Duty. The defendant had not breached section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Not every administrative act requires a separate Equality Act assessment. The database had been created to facilitate the finding of accommodation in a non-discriminatory way, which was sufficient in the circumstances.
6. The claim was dismissed.