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

The claim concerned the defendant local authority's discharge of its homelessness functions under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and related allegations of indirect discrimination and breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010. The court concluded that the accommodation provided to the claimant at the Catford Studio was unsuitable for the claimant and her child by the end of October 2022, though the authority conceded unsuitability from 17 June 2023 and suitable accommodation was provided on 25 August 2023.

The court held that the defendant's database or transfer list, as described, was not a "provision, criterion or practice" (PCP) for the purposes of an indirect discrimination claim under s.19 Equality Act 2010. Even if it had been treated as a PCP, the statistical material before the court did not show a reliable comparator effect or causal link so as to establish indirect discrimination; and, in any event, the database would have been a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims of managing scarce housing resources. Finally, the court found no breach of the public sector equality duty (s.149 Equality Act 2010) on the facts pleaded.

Background and parties: This is a first-instance judicial review brought by the claimant, who originally applied to the defendant local housing authority as homeless and was accommodated in a studio flat (the Catford Studio). The claimant complained about suitability of the accommodation and later alleged the authority operated a transfer list or database which indirectly discriminated against women and breached the public sector equality duty. Shelter was granted permission to intervene. The judgment records procedural steps including interim relief, an offer of alternative accommodation accepted by the claimant on 25 August 2023, and subsequent removal of any stay.

(i) Nature of the claim/application: Not stated in the judgment.

(ii) Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the Catford Studio was unsuitable accommodation for the claimant and her child (relevant contested dates: from 13 October 2022 or from 17 June 2023 to 25 August 2023).
• Whether the defendant operated a transfer list or database that constituted a PCP resulting in indirect discrimination contrary to s.19 Equality Act 2010 against women, and whether the defendant could justify any such PCP.
• Whether the defendant breached the Public Sector Equality Duty in s.149 Equality Act 2010.

(iii) Court's reasoning and outcome in brief: On suitability, the judge found the Catford Studio to have been unsuitable by the end of October 2022 for the claimant and her child, noting the claimant's pleaded factors (layout, lack of cot space, falls, heating/mental health impacts). However the authority had conceded unsuitability from 17 June 2023 and the factual consequence was academic because suitable accommodation had been secured on 25 August 2023.

On the alleged PCP, the judge concluded that creating and maintaining a database to organise applicants and their needs is a tool for case management rather than the application of a PCP. The available statistical evidence did not establish reliable comparators, a proportionate disadvantage to women, or the necessary causal link between the database and the asserted disadvantages. Even if the database were a PCP, the judge held it would be a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims of managing scarce housing stock and matching need to supply. On the PSED, the court accepted that not every administrative act requires a bespoke equality assessment and that, on the evidence, the authority had given adequate regard to equality considerations in operating the system described. The claim was dismissed.

This first-instance claim for judicial review is dismissed. The judge found the Catford Studio to have been unsuitable for the claimant and her child by the end of October 2022 but treated that finding as largely academic given the authority's concession from 17 June 2023 and the provision of suitable accommodation on 25 August 2023. The court held that the defendant's database/transfer list, as described, was not a provision, criterion or practice for the purposes of s.19 Equality Act 2010; the statistical evidence did not establish indirect discrimination or the requisite causal link; and, in any event, the database would be a proportionate means of achieving legitimate aims. The public sector equality duty was not breached on the facts found.