Introduction

The case of Luton Community Housing Ltd v. Durdana ([2020] EWCA Civ 445) adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on March 26, 2020, centers on the application of Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (PSED) in the context of housing possession proceedings. The appellant, Luton Community Housing Limited (LCH), sought possession of the premises at 3 Griggs Gardens, Luton, under Ground 17 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Act 1988, alleging that the tenancy was granted based on false statements made by the respondent, Ms. Durdana. The respondent, who has disabilities including PTSD and has a daughter with cerebral palsy, challenged the possession order, emphasizing the impact on her and her daughter's well-being and alleging a breach of the PSED by LCH.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal allowed LCH's appeal against HH Judge Bloom's decision to dismiss the possession claim. The original judge had found that LCH breached the PSED by failing to adequately consider the impact of eviction on Ms. Durdana and her daughter, leading to the dismissal of the possession claim despite Ground 17 being satisfied. The appellate court, however, concluded that a proper assessment under Section 149 would likely have resulted in the same decision to seek possession. This determination was based on the severity of the fraudulent conduct by the tenant, the policies of LCH regarding deceit in tenancy applications, and the limited impact assessed from the disabilities of the respondent and her child.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior case law to contextualize the obligations under Section 149 PSED:

• R (Hurley) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2012] – Clarified that the duty under Section 149 does not oblige public authorities to achieve specific equality outcomes but to have due regard to the need to advance equality aims.
• Aldwyck Housing Group Ltd v Forward Ltd [2019] – Established that possession claims should not be dismissed solely on PSED breaches unless it is highly likely that the decision would not have differed with proper compliance.
• R (Bracking) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2014] – Demonstrated that substantial breaches of PSED in policy decisions can lead to quashing of such decisions.
• Powell v Dacorum Borough Council [2019] – Highlighted that in individual housing cases, the impact of PSED is assessed within the specific factual context.

These precedents collectively underscore that while PSED imposes significant considerations, it does not render certain policies or decisions impervious to other statutory obligations or lead to automatic relief.

Legal Reasoning

The core legal issue revolves around whether LCH fulfilled its duty under Section 149 to have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity and eliminate discrimination. The original judge found that LCH failed to conduct a rigorous and open-minded assessment of the impact of eviction on the disabled respondent and her child, thereby breaching PSED. However, upon appeal, the Court of Appeal scrutinized whether this breach materially affected the outcome—in other words, whether LCH would have proceeded with possession even if it had properly complied with PSED.

The appellate court concluded that, given the severity of the tenant's fraudulent actions and the pressing need to allocate limited social housing to more deserving applicants, LCH's decision to seek possession was reasonable and proportionate. The disabilities of Ms. Durdana and her child, while significant, did not render the possession order unreasonable in the face of the deceptive conduct that prohibited more needy applicants from accessing the premises.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the balancing act that public authorities must perform between upholding equality duties and enforcing statutory obligations, such as those under the Housing Act 1988. It highlights that compliance with PSED does not automatically override other legitimate grounds for decision-making, especially in cases involving fraud. Moreover, it emphasizes the necessity for thorough and genuine assessments under PSED, yet maintains that such assessments must be weighed alongside other relevant factors.

Future cases will likely reference this judgment when determining the extent to which public authorities must accommodate protected characteristics when balancing against policy mandates or statutory provisions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Luton Community Housing Ltd v. Durdana judgment underscores the nuanced application of the Public Sector Equality Duty within the realm of housing law. While mandates like PSED require public authorities to consider the impacts of their decisions on protected groups, this case illustrates that such duties must be balanced against other legitimate statutory obligations and policies. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed that in instances of substantial misconduct, such as fraud in tenancy applications, the pursuit of possession remains a justifiable and proportionate action, even when weighed against the potential adverse effects on vulnerable individuals.

This decision serves as a critical reference point for public authorities in performing their duties, ensuring that while equality considerations are integral to decision-making, they coexist with the imperative to uphold the law and maintain equitable access to limited resources.