CA-2024-002185 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1049

Ms Monaghan and Mr Sprack both made submissions on behalf of the appellant. They submitted that female single parents with children, and women generally, were put at a particular disadvantage. They relied on a table, and arguments, set out in the skeleton argument first provided to the High Court, from which it was said that that inference could be made. The table is as follows.

In essence, the first column shows particular groups of persons. The second column shows persons in what was described as temporary accommodation. It was confirmed at the hearing that that phrase meant persons to whom duties were owed under Part VII of the 1996 Act. The data was taken from data published by the government and, it seems, provided to the government by the respondent. The data covered the period April to June 2023 as that was the period during which it was claimed the appellant had been subjected to indirect discrimination. It was the only period for which the appellant had data. The second column in the table provided to the court – headed “Total in TA” – showed only the proportion of persons in what was described as temporary accommodation. I have added the actual numbers of such persons to make analysis easier.

The columns headed Info 1 show data taken from the database on which the appellant’s name had been included. The reference to those listed in the Info 1 database as “Unsuitable” means those in the accommodation which was accepted by the respondent to be unsuitable for the applicant, which I understood from oral submissions made by counsel, to mean the accommodation did not fulfil the duty owed under section 193(2) to those persons to secure suitable accommodation for those to whom the duty was owed. The Info 1 database at the material time also included those who were in accommodation but wanted a planned move at some stage to other accommodation. That is why the Info 1 “Total” is larger than the “Info 1 – Unsuitable” column.

The gist of counsel’s submissions was to start by considering the composition of the group of single parents with a child or children who were placed in what was described as temporary accommodation in April to June 2023. 90.5% of such households comprised a female single parent with a child or children and 9.5% comprised a male single parent with a child or children. Counsel then considered Info 1 (the database on which the applicant had been placed). The proportion of households placed in accommodation which the respondent accepted was unsuitable comprised of a female single parent and a child or children was 50.4% in Info 1. Counsel sought to draw the inference that being placed on the database, or transfer list, therefore put woman with one or more children at a particular disadvantage as compared with men. A higher proportion of households headed by single women with one or more children as compared with those headed by single men were placed in unsuitable accommodation. Counsel submitted that the same picture emerged from Info 2, which was data of those on the database from a period when the basis for collecting the data had changed and when the appellant was no longer in unsuitable accommodation and was not on the database.

Alternatively, counsel for the appellant submitted that the proportion of people to whom the respondent admitted it provided unsuitable accommodation (the Info 1 figure) who were female was 72.79%. Whilst the calculation is not entirely clear, counsel seems to have arrived at that figure by adding up the groups of single females with children, ½ of the group of 2 or more adults with children (on the assumption that the likelihood was that the household would comprise one female and one male adult), lone females and, it seems, ½ of the group of others. In contrast, the proportion of people to whom it provided unsuitable accommodation who were male accounted for only 27.21%. Similar results were said to follow when the data for women and men in a household with children were considered. It is submitted that further, similar results were achieved when the Info 2 database was analysed.

Shelter also made submissions on this issue. Ms Davies KC, with Mr Bano, for Shelter submitted that the appeal was concerned only with those persons on the database who were in unsuitable accommodation (because the respondent was in breach of the duty owed to them under section 193(2) of the 1996 Act and waiting to be moved to suitable accommodation). It was submitted that no issue of discrimination arose in relation to those persons on the database who were not (or were not accepted by the respondent to be) in unsuitable accommodation and were awaiting a planned move in the event of surplus accommodation becoming available.

Ms Davies submitted that being in unsuitable accommodation (in breach of the duty in section 193(2) was a particular disadvantage. That was not because the list itself caused the disadvantage. It was the remaining in unsuitable accommodation that was the particular disadvantage. The question was whether a higher proportion of women as compared with men were put at that particular disadvantage. In essence, Ms Davies submitted that if one looked solely at single women with a child or children, they represented about a third (34.2%) of households in temporary accommodation (that is, persons provided with accommodation under Part VII of the 1996 Act). That proportion jumped once the PCP relied on was applied and they represented more than half of those in unsuitable accommodation (50.4% on the data in Info 1 and 55.8% on the data in Info 2). Similarly, Ms Davies submitted that if households with at least one woman in the household were considered, that increased from 74.1% of households provided with temporary accommodation (ie. accommodation provided under Part VII) to over 90% (91.2% on the data in Info 1 and 92.8% on the data in Info 2). Ms Davies submitted that it could be inferred therefore that a higher proportion of women than men were placed at a particular disadvantage by being placed on a transfer list and being required to wait in unsuitable accommodation.

Mr Rutledge KC, with Ms Screeche-Powell, for the respondent submitted that the first task was to identify the group to which the PCP relied upon was, or would be, applied. That was homeless applicants owed a duty to be provided with suitable accommodation by the respondent and whose details were put on the database. The question then was whether the homeless female applicants on the database were put at a disadvantage when compared with homeless male applicants on the database. Mr Rutledge submitted that the answer to that question was no, as there was no evidence to suggest that homeless male applicants on the database would, as a group, have any greater chance of being provided with suitable accommodation than homeless women applicants on the database.