AB & Anor, R (on the application of) v Westminster City Council

The claim was a judicial review of Westminster City Council's discharge of its homelessness duties under the Housing Act 1996 and of its policies/practices in relation to accommodating households with support animals, with parallel reliance on the Equality Act 2010 (indirect discrimination and the public sector equality duty). Key statutory provisions considered included HA 1996 ss 184, 188, 193, 202, 203, 204 and 206, and EA 2010 ss 6, 19, 29 and 149. The council conceded a breach of its duty to secure suitable accommodation up to 17 October 2023; the court accepted that concession and will hear submissions on remedies and costs in respect of that historic breach.

The court declined to find that the council was in breach of HA 1996 s 193(2) from 17 October 2023 because (i) the claimants had not properly pleaded or adduced evidence specifically challenging the current Travelodge accommodation in Town Y, so the question of its suitability was not properly before the court; (ii) an internal review and, if necessary, a County Court appeal under HA 1996 ss 202–204 provided a more appropriate statutory route to challenge suitability; and (iii) on the limited evidence before the court the council’s view that the Town Y Travelodge was suitable in the short to medium term was not irrational.

The court refused permission and dismissed the claim so far as it relied on (a) indirect discrimination under EA 2010 s 19 in relation to (i) a requirement that applicants provide medical evidence to be considered for animal‑friendly accommodation and (ii) the council’s procurement/stock arrangements that resulted in few regular providers accepting pets; and (b) a breach of the public sector equality duty under EA 2010 s 149 in relation to the suitability assessments. The court held that the medical‑evidence requirement was not shown to disproportionately disadvantage disabled people and in any event was justifiable given the scarcity of animal‑friendly accommodation; and that the claimants had not established the requisite group disadvantage arising from the council’s procurement practices. The PSED challenge failed because the council had properly considered the claimants’ disabilities in the decision‑making process and because suitability post‑17 October 2023 was not an appropriate issue for determination by judicial review.

This is a first‑instance judicial review by AB and CD, a disabled couple, challenging Westminster City Council’s handling of their homelessness application and the suitability of interim accommodation provided, together with claims of indirect discrimination and breach of the public sector equality duty in relation to the council’s policies on accommodating households with animals.

Background and procedural posture

• The claimants fled exploitation in Town X, arrived in London and applied for homelessness assistance on 20 April 2023.
• The council accepted the full housing duty under HA 1996 s 193 on 18 August 2023 after medical evidence was provided regarding the need to be accommodated with their support dog.
• The council conceded a breach of the homelessness duty up to 17 October 2023; thereafter the claimants were moved together with their dog to wheelchair‑accessible accommodation in a Travelodge in Town Y on 17 October 2023.
• Permission was granted on two grounds (unsuitability of accommodation pre‑17 October and PSED). Permission was initially refused on the indirect discrimination ground; that refusal was renewed for consideration on a rolled‑up basis at the hearing.

Nature of relief sought

• The claimants sought declarations and mandatory relief to remedy alleged failures to secure suitable accommodation under HA 1996 s 193(2) and redress for alleged breaches of EA 2010 s 19 (indirect discrimination) and s 149 (PSED).

Issues framed by the court

1. Whether the council was in breach of its HA 1996 s 193(2) duty after 17 October 2023 (suitability of the Town Y Travelodge) and, if so, whether mandatory relief should be granted.
2. Whether the council’s policy/practice requiring medical evidence to secure animal‑friendly accommodation, and/or its procurement arrangements that led to few regular providers accepting pets, amounted to unlawful indirect discrimination under EA 2010 s 19 read with s 29.
3. Whether the council breached the public sector equality duty in assessing suitability under EA 2010 s 149.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions

• On suitability after 17 October 2023 the court emphasised procedural rigour: where a public authority asserts a different accommodation is suitable after proceedings are issued, the claimant must specifically plead and adduce evidence challenging that accommodation so the defendant can respond. Absent amendment and evidence, the court will not find the authority irrationally wrong.
• The statutory route of internal review and County Court appeal under HA 1996 ss 202–204 is the more appropriate mechanism for resolving disputed suitability; judicial review is a discretionary remedy and should not supplant the detailed statutory process unless exceptional reasons obtain.
• On the indirect discrimination challenge, the court divided the claimants’ case into (i) the medical‑evidence requirement and (ii) the council’s procurement/stock position. The first was not shown to cause disproportionate disadvantage and was justifiable given the scarcity of animal‑friendly accommodation. The second identified a relevant provision, criterion or practice (PCP) but lacked evidence of group disadvantage necessary under s 19(2)(b).
• The PSED claim failed because the council had considered the claimants’ disabilities in the decision‑making process; Haque does not require more than a rigorous consideration of disability when assessing suitability, and where suitability is accepted or disputed the correct route is the statutory review/appeal process.

Wider observations

• The judgment emphasises the limits of judicial review in homelessness/suitability disputes where Parliament has created a detailed internal review and appeal regime and underlines the importance of precise pleading and evidence when issues change during litigation.

This first‑instance judicial review was allowed only to the extent of the council’s conceded breach of HA 1996 ss 188(1) and 193(2) up to 17 October 2023; otherwise the claim was dismissed. The court accepted the council’s genuine belief that the Town Y Travelodge was suitable in the short to medium term and declined to find that belief irrational in the absence of specific pleaded and evidential challenge, noting the availability of statutory internal review and County Court appeal under HA 1996 ss 202–204 as the appropriate route to challenge suitability. The indirect discrimination and PSED grounds were dismissed on their merits for lack of established group disadvantage and because the council had given due regard to the claimants’ disabilities in its decision‑making.