RZH v London Borough of Sutton

In applying the statutory test of whether it is reasonable for an applicant to continue to occupy accommodation, a local authority must consider all relevant circumstances, including disability-related needs and impacts. A housing need for larger accommodation does not, by itself, establish that existing accommodation is unreasonable to occupy.

The public sector equality duty changes the quality of the decision-making required, but does not automatically require a favourable homelessness decision whenever accommodation imposes a greater burden because of disability. The reasonable-adjustments and indirect-discrimination duties are substantive duties, but they are engaged only where an identifiable provision, criterion or practice has been applied.

The case was dual-listed as a statutory appeal under section 204 of the Housing Act 1996 and a judicial review claim. Both challenges concerned the same review decision by Sutton London Borough Council under section 202 of the 1996 Act.

The applicants argued that the decision unlawfully applied overcrowding standards, failed to investigate risks to the children, breached the duty to safeguard their welfare, failed to comply with the public sector equality duty, and breached the reasonable-adjustments and indirect-discrimination duties under the Equality Act 2010.

The central issues were whether the accommodation was unreasonable to continue to occupy, whether the decision-making duties had been discharged, and whether an unlawful discriminatory practice had been applied.

1. Outcome. The section 204 appeal and judicial review claim were dismissed. The appellant and claimants were ordered to pay the respondent’s respective costs, subject to detailed assessment of means and publicly funded costs.
2. Reasonableness and housing need. The RCO Test under section 175(3) of the Housing Act 1996 is distinct from the broader assessment of housing needs under section 189A(2)(b). A finding that a household would benefit from a three-bedroom property does not itself establish that its current two-bedroom accommodation is unreasonable to continue to occupy.
3. Disability and equality duties. Disability-related needs and impacts are relevant to the RCO Test. The public sector equality duty requires focused consideration of the nature, extent and effects of disability and of different needs. It does not impose a duty to equalise every disability-related burden by granting larger accommodation or by finding that the applicant is homeless.
4. The reasonable-adjustments and indirect-discrimination duties under sections 20, 19 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010 are distinct substantive duties. They are not excluded merely because equality considerations overlap with reasonableness review or the public sector equality duty. However, they require an identifiable provision, criterion or practice. No such practice was shown: the review officer had considered the family’s circumstances, impacts and disability-related implications rather than mechanically applying the statutory room and space standard.
5. The decision-maker had lawfully addressed the evidence concerning sleeping arrangements, the CPAP machine, autism, welfare and safeguarding. A precautionary referral to children’s social services was not inconsistent with adequate inquiry or with the duty under section 11(2) of the Children Act 2004.
6. In principle, a section 204 appeal may address points concerning the lawfulness of a section 202 review decision, including a public sector equality duty breach. A discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010 has been held to fall outside the section 204 appeal, but may be brought through the county court’s section 114 jurisdiction. Dual-listing those routes in the county court may avoid unnecessary transfer to the High Court.

The judgment describes a section 204 appeal filed in the county court and a subsequent judicial review claim in the High Court. The appeal was transferred to the High Court so that both matters could be heard together. This court dismissed both challenges.