CA-2024-002348 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1390

The fourth issue can be taken relatively shortly. Section 20 of the 2010 Act provides that a public authority is under a duty to make a reasonable adjustment if one of three requirements are met. The material one is the first requirement set out in section 20(3) which concerns a PCP which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled.

The appellant’s skeleton argument submits that the Judge made the same error of approach in relation to section 136 of the 2010 in relation to the claim under section 20 of the 2010 Act as she made in relation to the claim under section 19.

There are two short answers to this submission. First, the Judge did not, in fact, reach a decision on whether the requirement was satisfied. Rather she considered whether the adjustment sought was reasonable if it were assumed that the requirement was satisfied. She did not therefore make the error alleged. Secondly, and in any event, the reasoning at paragraphs 51 to 63 above in relation to the application of section 136 in the context of section 19 applies equally to section 20. There is no evidence establishing facts from which a court could infer that there had been a contravention of section 20(3) of the 2010 Act. In particular, there is no evidence that the PCP is putting disabled persons at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled.

For completeness, the adjustment sought by the appellant was that homeless households with members who had a serious disability should gain additional priority over non-disabled persons in the same homeless cohort (see [66] of the judgment below). The Judge concluded that, even if the appellant were able to establish that there was a duty to make a reasonable adjustment, the adjustment sought was not a reasonable one. To give such additional priority would run counter to the allocation scheme that the respondent was entitled to adopt (see [67] which is set out above). I consider that the Judge was entitled, indeed correct, to reach that conclusion. Local housing authorities are required to adopt an allocation scheme determining priorities in allocating housing accommodation and “shall not allocate housing accommodation except in accordance with their allocation scheme” (Section 166A(14) of the 1996 Act). The respondent has adopted an allocation scheme. That scheme is lawful. It sets out the priorities for particular groups. It would not be a reasonable adjustment to depart from that scheme and allocate housing in a different way.

For those reasons I would dismiss ground 2 of the appeal.