RR, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Enfield

The claimant challenged the defendant's allocations scheme under Part 6 of the Housing Act 1996 and relied also on anti-discrimination law. The court held that the allocations scheme, read as a whole, does not unlawfully cap reasonable preference priority for applicants owed the main homelessness duty and that there was no misinterpretation of the scheme by the authority. The court concluded that Article 8 was not engaged in the allocations policy challenge and that the claimant did not establish unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 in respect of reasonable adjustments or indirect discrimination.

The only successful element of the claim was that the council had not fulfilled the public sector equality duty in respect of adequate monitoring and recording of statistics about allocation outcomes for disabled households; however no remedial relief was available because the outcome for the claimant would not have been different.

Statutory provisions central to the decision included Part 6 and Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996, section 166A (allocation schemes) and relevant provisions of the Equality Act 2010 (notably sections 20 and 149).

Background and parties: RR (claimant) brought judicial review proceedings against the London Borough of Enfield (defendant) challenging the lawfulness of Enfield's allocations scheme for social housing. RR, a carer for his seriously injured wife, was placed in temporary accommodation under the council's Part 7 duties and awarded 200 points under the allocations scheme. He sought review of that points award and challenged the scheme as unlawful and discriminatory.

Nature of the application and relief sought: RR sought relief by judicial review contending (i) the authority misapplied and misinterpreted its allocations scheme so as to cap priority for homeless applicants; (ii) the allocations policy was incompatible with Article 14 read with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and (iii) the policy breached the Equality Act 2010 (failure to make reasonable adjustments, indirect discrimination and breach of the public sector equality duty).

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether the allocations scheme was misread or internally inconsistent such that homeless applicants were unlawfully prevented from obtaining health and wellbeing reasonable preference points;
• Whether the allocations policy engaged Article 8/ECHR and thereby Article 14;
• Whether the allocations policy amounted to unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010: (a) failure to make reasonable adjustments, (b) indirect discrimination, and (c) breach of the public sector equality duty (PSED).

Court's reasoning and conclusions: The court interpreted the allocations scheme as permitting allocation of reasonable preference categories by reference to the highest category within a group and explained that the scheme expressly disapplies additional preference points to applicants already in the homelessness cohort; that construction did not amount to a misreading or internal contradiction. The court emphasised the statutory separation and interaction of Parts 6 and 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and accepted established authority that local authorities have a margin of judgment in allocation priorities. On human rights, the court followed appellate authority holding allocation schemes do not ordinarily fall within the ambit of Article 8 and therefore Article 14 did not arise. On the Equality Act, the claimant failed to make out a prima facie case of a provision, criterion or practice (PCP) putting disabled people at a particular disadvantage for the purposes of reasonable adjustments or indirect discrimination. However, the court found that Enfield had failed to satisfy the PSED duty of inquiry and monitoring because it lacked adequate data collection and analysis about the impact of allocation decisions on disabled households. The court nevertheless refused relief because section 31(2A) applied: the outcome for RR would not have been different and alternative suitable accommodation had been offered and accepted.

The claim is dismissed. The court found no misinterpretation of Enfield’s allocations scheme and dismissed challenges under Article 14/ECHR and the Equality Act 2010 as to reasonable adjustments and indirect discrimination. The claimant succeeded only in showing a limited breach of the public sector equality duty (failure to monitor and record statistics on allocation outcomes for disabled households), but no remedy was granted because the outcome for the claimant would not have been different.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the papers after interlocutory consideration by deputy High Court judges; the proceedings followed prior interlocutory steps including an anonymity order and directions for amended pleadings in light of R (Imam) v London Borough of Croydon [2023] UKSC 45. The claim was heard in the Administrative Court (High Court) and determined at first instance by HHJ Karen Walden-Smith on 3 October 2024.