Court of Appeal upholds legality of homelessness database
Housing, Public Law and Judicial Review, Local Government
Neither a database logging the details of homeless applicants requiring a move to suitable accommodation, nor the system within which it operated, discriminated indirectly against women or otherwise breached the public sector equality duty (PSED) merely because applicants on the database were statistically more likely to be women than men. The Court of Appeal so held in a judgment handed down on 31 July in R (Anisa Begum) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2025] EWCA Civ 1049.
Claim dismissed
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court to dismiss Anisa Begum’s claim, supported by the charity Shelter, that the way in which Tower Hamlets Council had treated her homelessness application breached both section 19 and section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
What the database does
The database is one way in which Tower Hamlets Council is seeking to combat the severe shortage of suitable temporary accommodation. Where an applicant owed a housing duty needs to move to suitable accommodation (in the instant case this was due to natural growth of the family), their details are put on the database which records, amongst other things, household composition, medical recommendations, maximum floor height, area and so on, but not the applicant’s gender. When a property becomes or would shortly become available, the database enables officers to short-list suitable households swiftly and efficiently, enabling them to decide from the group thereby identified which household provides the best match. Waiting time on the database is only considered in the unlikely event of a tie-break between two or more evenly matched households.
The Court’s view
The Court accepted Tower Hamlet’s submission that the database was not a deferral list or otherwise a means of delaying performance of the housing duty. Its purpose, as the High Court had found, was the “exact opposite”. The advantages of the database are not only speed, efficiency, consistency and transparency in short-listing households, but it also helps reduce void time and spotlights where demand for accommodation type is the greatest, driving procurement in the same direction.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment contains helpful analyses in respect of section 19 of the 2010 Act of what constitutes a provision, criterion of practice (PCP); the correct comparator group and the importance of causation and, as regards the PSED, demonstrates the correct approach to be adopted where the equality considerations and functions being performed substantially overlap. The full judgment can be found here.
Representation
Kelvin Rutledge KC of Cornerstone Barristers and Genevieve Screeche-Powell of Field Court Chambers appeared for Tower Hamlets Council instructed by its Legal Services Department.
