High Court finds council’s housing policy indirectly discriminates against women fleeing violence

The High Court has found Westminster City Council’s housing policy indirectly discriminates against women and girls fleeing violence.

In April, Deputy High Court judge Simon Tinkler KC said aspects of the policy were unlawful and contradicted parts of the Equality Act 2010 but stopped short of quashing them.

Westminster Council was taken to court after refusing a woman’s request for a “reciprocal transfer” into accommodation in the borough.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was living in social housing in a London borough bordering Westminster.

“Her child was sexually abused by her neighbour. This abuse was discovered in 2021. The neighbour still lives next door to the Claimant,” the judgment stated.

“In order to avoid encountering her neighbour, the Claimant’s child has been living abroad with relatives whilst alternative safe and suitable accommodation is found.”

The woman requested the move after her social housing provider was unable to find her and her daughter a suitable alternative home.

Westminster Council refused the request, citing the lack of available housing in the borough. Under a reciprocal transfer, Westminster could house the family and get access to equivalent accommodation in the neighbouring borough for one of its tenants.

Handing down his ruling, Judge Tinkler said this has had “an incredibly traumatic effect on the claimant and her child”.

He added: “It is now over two years since the search for replacement accommodation started and her child moved abroad. Both the claimant and her child are suffering serious medical issues as a consequence of the situation.”

The claimant and her child are reported to have lived in Westminster for a number of years when the child was at primary school and have a social network in the borough.

In a letter to the woman’s solicitor, Westminster Council said it had refused the application “due to the demand from priority groups and that by agreeing a reciprocal we would, based on current projections be rehousing [the Claimant] over 10 years out of turn.”

The claimant launched a legal challenge, supported by the Public Interest Law Centre, on the basis that policy treats people who are tenants in Westminster differently to people who live outside Westminster.

She asked the court to quash parts of the policy or declare them illegal. She also asked for the decision to be quashed and require the council to reconsider her application.

The claimant argued the policy indirectly discriminated against women because she claimed people who move boroughs to escape violence are more likely to be women than men.

Westminster Council said it has very limited available housing and is unable to house everyone in Westminster who is in need. It said although the woman’s position was extremely unfortunate, it had properly exercised discretion in making the decision.

But judge Tinkler said the policy was indirectly discriminatory contrary to s19 and s29 of the Equality Act 2010 and the council had not yet justified the discrimination. He also said Westminster Council failed to comply with its public sector equality duty.

Judge Tinkler said: “The relevant sections of the policy are therefore unlawful for both those reasons.”

He did not, however, quash those sections, instead offering the council a chance to alter them to make them lawful.

He ordered the council to reconsider the application by 30 April 2024 and treat the claimant as if she were a tenant of Westminster. The council said it is working with the resident’s legal team to address their needs and find them suitable accommodation in the borough.

Local MP Nickie Aiken said she was “disappointed” in the council’s handling of the application.

She said: “Although I can’t comment on an individual case I have not been involved in, I am disappointed to read that Westminster Council has been found to have failed to support this housing application.”

Sam Tippet of the Public Interest Law Centre said: “It’s a relief that the Court has found Westminster Council’s policy unlawful. We hope that the council now make due amends, and find this family a safe place to live as a matter of urgency.”

He added: “Time and time again those fleeing abuse are being forced by councils to give up social housing. Survivors are having to fight to save their housing security at a time when they are suffering extreme trauma and fear. Councils must take responsibility and properly protect survivors when they most need it, instead of causing them further harm and distress.”

A Westminster City council spokesperson said: “We are sorry about any distress that this person may have experienced. We care about the welfare of all our residents and regret that they have not received a good service from the council.

“We are working with the resident’s legal team to address their needs and find them suitable accommodation within the borough. As part of our efforts to address this, we are reviewing the council’s Allocation Policy to ensure that people living both within and outside the borough are treated fairly in line with the Equalities Act.”

Judgment: AK v Westminster City Council.

Additional reporting by Linus Rees.