High Court rules on alleged failures by council to provide decant accommodation

The claimant challenged alleged failures by Hackney to provide decant accommodation in breach of its policies, s.19(3) of the Care Act 2015, ss15 and 19 of the Equality Act 2010 and s.149 of the Equality Act 2010 after the lift broke down.

Jonathan Glasson KC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court, was told the claimant is the tenant of a second floor flat in Greville Court and has a number of medical conditions that mean he can only access his flat by lift.

The lift broke down on 27 March 2025 and on 31 March his solicitor asked Hackney to provide him with alternative temporary accommodation until the lift was fixed.

On 3 April the council offered accommodation in a hotel but the claimant has dogs  - who are deemed a protective factor in managing his mental health difficulties - and it was impractical to accommodate them.

The claimant applied on 22 April for an interim order compelling Hackney to provide suitable accommodation but the lift at Greville Court was back in service the following day.

He then issued a claim for damages for breaches of Hackney’s repairing covenants and general damages arising from the lift breakdowns.

The grounds cited were that Hackney failed to follow its ‘lift breakdown protocol housing procedure’, failed to publish both the policy and its 'temporary decant procedure’ policy and unlawfully failed to consider exercising its power under s 19(3) of the Care Act 2014.

The claimant also claimed Hackney breached s. 149 of the Equality Act 2010 as the policy does not provide for an assessment of a disabled person's housing needs when decanting and nor did it give the required 'sharp focus’ to his disabilities.

The deputy judge rejected all of these points as having become academic.

He explained: “This is not a case where a discrete point of statutory construction arises which does not involve detailed consideration of the facts, and where large number of similar cases exist or are anticipated so that the issue will most likely need to be resolved in the near future.”

The county court would be best placed to deal with the two equality issues raised by the claimant, he said.

These were that Hackney discriminated against him contrary to s 15 of the 2010 Act by not offering accommodation where his dogs could accompany him, and that the council indirectly discriminated against him.

Mr Smith said: “In my judgment the county court would be a more appropriate venue for determination of these grounds, as the county court is able to hear evidence and resolve any disputes of fact, including in relation to any assessment of damages.”

Turning to costs, Mr Smith said it would be inappropriate to order Hackney to pay the claimant’s costs as the council had had to incur expenditure responding to four claims deemed academic.

“I have therefore made no order as to costs, save for the costs associated with the Equality Act 2010 claim which are reserved to the county court,” Mr Smith concluded.

Mark Smulian